Land in Auckland
March 17th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David FarrarNick Smith said:
It is essential that more land is made available for housing to improve supply and affordability in Auckland, Minister of Housing Dr Nick Smith said today in releasing the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment report ‘Residential Land Available in Auckland’.
“This report shows a worrying trend of reduced land availability and soaring section prices in Auckland over the past decade. It highlights that with projected population growth, Auckland will need about 13,000 additional homes per year over the next three decades and that with changing household make-ups, the biggest growth in demand will be for smaller households,” Dr Smith says.
So how is the Council doing?
- The number of new sections available to be built on today is 1900 – significantly less than the 15,000 previously reported.
- The land ready to be subdivided has a capacity of 14,500 sections, compared to the Council’s development strategy target of seven years supply of 32,550 sections.
- The land in the pipeline for subdivision has a capacity of 54,500 sections, with the Council’s development strategy target being 20 years supply of 103,500 sections.
- “This report shows Auckland needs double the supply of land to meet the Council’s own targets.
That last point is crucial. They are not even on target to have half the land they need for their own targets. And their own targets are well below what is needed also.
The draft unitary plan projects:
- 280,000 new homes within the current urban limit
- 90,000 new homes in greenfield areas outside the current limit
So they are not on track to have even half the land they need for their draft unitary plan. But how realistic is it to have 280,000 new homes within the current urban Auckland?
The Government’s further concern, detailed in this report, is that Auckland’s plan will require the building of 4000 high-density dwellings every year for the next decade and 10,000 per year after that. This compares to 830 higher density dwellings consented last year and an average of 2674 per year over the past decade.
Does anyone think Auckland Council can consent 4,000 high-density dwellings a year let alone 10,000 a year?
Officials are cautious that this can be achieved, particularly when previous intensification targets set by Auckland planners a decade ago were not met.
In other words they’ve failed to meet even past modest targets, so its madness to think they can meet their targets either for intensification or for greenfield developments.
Related posts:
- Smith targets Auckland metropolitan urban limit
- From 15,000 to 2,000
- Auckland land prices
- Len’s plan won’t work
March 17th, 2013 at 10:28 am
This is really about the Council not wanting to supply the additional roading and sewerage services that new subdivisions require. That point was simply not made when Brown made his announcement.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 10:31 am
“Officials are cautious that this can be achieved, particularly when previous intensification targets set by Auckland planners a decade ago were not met.”
This misses the point. The key reason intensification targets were not met when the regional growth strategy came in in 1999 is because the councils never did the rezoning they said they were going to do. It remained illegal or at least very difficult to intensify of much of Auckland. And the unitary plan proposes to do exactly what the previous councils didnt – rezone big time.
Regarding the governments criticism – I agree more land around the periphery needs to be opened up. However the plan at least allows some (quite a bit) more than at present, as well as significant liberalisation within the city. And yet government is refusing to allow the plan to become active for 3 years. So why is the government standing in the way of liberalisation of land use??? It seems hypocritical to me.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 10:36 am
I saw the proposed areas where the towers will be built. The 18 story ones are for Manurewa, Papakura, henderson, G I. and the like
Remuera – 4 stories only
On ya Len , making a slum like parts of Manurewa a high density slum. Legend.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 10:43 am
Pauleastbay -
On the other hand Takapuna and Albany are also to be zoned for high density, whilst Beachaven, Glenfield and Mangere are zoned more like Remuera. But cherry picking is a legitimate statistical technique right?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 10:53 am
tvb…
Yep…
But there is another point which he and Hulse, Rufman, Twyford et al ignored. Developers are NOW responsible for providing all roading and curbage, all sewage and rain water disposal means by connecting to Council system. All water and electricity reticulation costs are met by developers. Telephone and broadband are put in at the same time.
Care to guess who pays for all that? The Council? B S! It is the ever suffering section purchaser.
In addition the Council steals 4% of the value as a development (reserrves, libraries etc.) tax – a tax to which 15% GST is added, with the whole sorry lot met by the section purchaser.
If any good comes out of this porridge, it will necessarily involve:
1. A simplied RMA process, back dated.
2. An RMA which covers only the most basic points.
3. All development taxes are abolished, but developers continue to put in all services and cost them into land prices.
4. All Council fees are limited to actual disbursement cost recovery, to encourage greater efficierncy.
5. The Auckland Uni Plan is deep-sixed by the Government (legislation if necessary) and they start again under new rules.
Oh… to ensure that all this happens, can someone arrange for Owen McShane is ressurected? (with apols to his widow).
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 10:57 am
oh yeah. Tga City council planners did all that stuff. Net result we have grandiose plans and services and roads and a huge debt to pay for by the rate payers. i.e. the landowners not the residents, who are different people in many many cases. Residents in many cases being those that camp in other peoples dwellings.
We have several thousand sections that have been sitting around whilst developers went bankrupt after the council insisted on all the nice to haves without tying that to section sales and house builds. (2000 in one development).
Anyway, Auckland deserves Smith. They make a good couple.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:07 am
swan
Pretty hard to more slumerize Glenfield and Beachaven, they’ve probably decided enough is enough.
And without having the rag in front of me, generally the inner city suburbs have very little high density. From my indepth ( while having one coffee) analysis it appeared they are putting a majority of the high rises out towards the edges of the existing city.
I would have thought the disasters of tower blocks in London, Glasgow and any number of other UK cities would have been warning enough for this fuckwit Brown, but obviously not.
And this flies in the face of the ACC pulling down the blocks of flats at the bottom of Surrey Cres and other places because the density housing did not work, failed people miserably and were dangerous as hell. But again, Len knows best!!!!!!!!
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:16 am
Pauleastbay
I do agree than some of the inner city suburbs have not had much in the way of rezoning (some of the character ones).
I dont know what tower blocks in London etc you are refering to, but presumably you are talking about council flats built by the state. Len isnt going to be building council flats. He is rezoning and setting upper limits. Developers can decide whether they think there is a market for 18 story blocks in Henderson.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:17 am
This is really about the Council not wanting to supply the additional roading and sewerage services that new subdivisions require. That point was simply not made when Brown made his announcement.
………..
and why should citizens subsidise the development/immigration juggernaut?
The [Savings Working Group] report added that there was little evidence that immigration boosted local incomes. In fact, the need to build roads and schools meant that net migration contributed to the national deficit. ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices
80% of our population growth in the last couple of decades has been the net inflow of non NZ citizens
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/mi-jarrett-comm.pdf
Bernard Hickey has the answer
Vote:http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/63594/bernard-hickey-has-list-actions-would-contain-latest-housing-price-bubble-especially-a
March 17th, 2013 at 11:19 am
tvb said
They also fail to realise that with increased densification the council will also have to provide additional roading and sewerage services (in addition to privately funded electricity mains, internet, phones etc). The difference is it is a lot dearer and more inconvenient for residents to provide additional capacity in the existing areas, since roads must be ripped up, existing services disrupted, etc.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:26 am
The only ones who benefit from Auckland fear of growth are the land bankers who sit on city fringe land knowing that developable land is a rare commodity hence rising in value. The cost per sq meter for multilevel housing is far in access as that for stand alone dwellings.
If the council released plenty of land for people to build on were they would like to live it would decrease the value hence make housing more affordable. Instead the policy setting is to increase the cost of greenfield sites and force people to live where they would rather not, in small expensive multilevel apartments that again no one wants.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:29 am
It is hilarious to see National’s Wellington drone David Farrar supporting a South Island housing minister’s attempts to undermine the democratically mandated Auckland mayor having just spent the last several months raging against the asset sales CIR on the basis that “we won, we’ve got the mandate”. Hypocrite much?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:31 am
As always, this has to be a three part strategy.
A lot of people would like to live in or very near the city, walk to work or take public transport (which works fine for short distances), and generally live the urban hipster lifestyle. This requires a city that people want to be in (some spending there on parks and facilities) and the ability to build attractive high density buildings close to the city centre. All great cities have this, certainly Melbourne and Sydney do.
A lot of people would like to live close to the city in some of the nicer suburbs, more than currently live in those suburbs. This means allowing medium density in these areas, the current residents of these areas don’t like this much. If this is done well it will result in increased land prices – 3 houses where one used to be are worth more. The problem is that many of the current residents don’t want to live in an area like that, so they hide behind “character” rules. The reality is that many of these people need to just take the money and run, instead of holding up development.
Finally, a lot of people would like to have a traditional quarter acre section, swimming pool, kids running in the garden etc. This will really only happen by extending the city limits, and these people need to live with the commute (or work from home to the extent that’s possible). We need to free up the limits somewhat to allow this.
Those who argue for only one portion of this strategy are missing the point. Those who say “just increase density in the city” without talking about medium density in the surrounding suburbs, without freeing up planning rules, and without allowing those who still want a quarter acre to have one, are missing the point.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 11:36 am
Nearly 300 homes sold for $1 million or more last month, but it is the middle to lower end of the market where activity is the most frenetic according to the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand.
REINZ figures for February show that 295 homes sold for $1 million or more in February, with 92 of those selling for $1.5m or above.
That’s a 47 per cent increase on February last year when 201 homes sold for $1m or more.
That meant there were six suburbs, all of them in Auckland, where the median selling price was above $1m in February: Herne Bay, $1.685m; Remuera, $1.244m; Freemans Bay, $1.1m; Ponsonby, $1.08m; Castor Bay, $1.075m; and Mellons Bay $1.058m.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8435193/Million-plus-boom-drives-property-market
So only rich pricks can now live in Auckland.
Meanwhile down in the Bay prices remain subdued. A situation that will not remiain for long.
Want to make some money. Buy Tga/Mount Papamoa Rotorua.
Good buying around and covers all the different price brackets.
Vote:20% plus increases coming in the next two years.
March 17th, 2013 at 11:48 am
PaulL. Hear hear.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Len Brown calls Smith and Key’s bluff.
Will Key repond positively or is he shackled by Smiths dogma.
Who is the boss? English, Smith and Ryall.
Rt. Hon. John Key
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON
Dear Prime Minister
I am writing to formally request that your government reconsider its decision not to facilitate the Auckland Unitary Plan (UP) taking effect, with greater weight, from notification.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871656
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Viking, dear fellow. Your horns are showing. Or is it the dilemma?
Brown and his fellow travellers have embarked upon a journey with no happy end, for them it must be said with no regret, in sight.
Brown wants his unitary plan.
Brown wants his dippy underground rail.
Brown wants the Government to pay (at least substantially) and or facilitate both.
But where are the political imperatives for the Government? Where are the protest marches? There are none!
The only, real, support for his silly dreams is to be found among his legion of planners (aka social engineers), RMA legal leeches, the Labour and red melon professional political class, and “The Tribe of highly intellectual left wing scribblers.”
Until that changes, he has not a snow ball’s chance, even in Auckland.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
flipper,
That is complete nonsense. The underground rail loop and the unitary plan couldnt be more different. The unitary plan is core council business, whereas the underground rail project is an expensive election promise.
For the underground rail loop, Brown is asking the Government to stump up cash. The government is quite right in fobbing him off.
For the unitary plan, the council is doing what is its core business. The unitary plan will come into effect eventually (in 3 years), unless central government change the legislation again. Brown is just asking for it to come in quicker.
Allowing it to come in quicker will mean land use for residential development is liberalised 3 years quicker. Both within and beyond the city limits. Exactly what the government has been calling for. The only disagreement is the quantum of the liberalisation. But some is better than none right.
So why wouldnt the government allow this liberalisation to happen (possibly the most significant such event in a generation)? They have been arguing housing affordability is about the supply side, and rightly so. It is fairly blatant hypocrisy if they dont do it, so that might be a good political reason for one.
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
I don’t really care except to say that Brown is the elected Mayor and regardless if you like it or not, just like National claim the mandate to sell assets, Brown has a mandate to run Auckland. That the Nats. are so useless they don’t enter local poitics is no one else’s fault and to be fair any that have mostly have been a failure. (Like their business attributes).
I am completely unable to see why Smith should be poking his oar into Aucklands business except to remove the RMA restrictions that both he and the Nats ranted on about since before they were even elected. 5 years and fuck all done.
Would Smith bother to intervene here in Tga. I doubt it, he would get his arse booted. That he got away with it in Christchurch was down to fate and usless pollies. ( He did come here once to interfere in the Rena shit and was not particularly welcome.)
Smith is a walking disaster and the sooner he quits to some nice place in the sun that needs his skills as an ambassador or something, the better.
Vote:Fiji sounds a good place. He could boss the boss.
March 17th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Don’t panic – Captain Panties can build 10,000 houses a year.
He has sussed it out but not told his mates Lying Len and Penny the Screecher yet
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Swan and Viking…
The only nonense being spoken (well, writ) here is by you.
I say that because you fail to understand the politics. At the centre is money – money for rail and money (either paid by would be residents or by Givernmernt subsidy), for housing. These are inextricably bound together. Oh… Please revert to the Productivity Comm report on housing costs for lesson 101.
Come up with all the plans you wish. But first ensure they are:
1. Financialy self supporting, and
Vote:2. Require no Central Government funding, and
3. Have no Central Govenment downside (like the cost of housing continuing to rise unchecked), and motorway gridlocks.
March 17th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
@ Griff:
If the council released plenty of land for people to build on were they would like to live it would decrease the value hence make housing more affordable.
Vote:……..
but the problem is paying for infrastructure. At the end of the day it has to come from wages and salaries and if the economy is too reliant on immigration as a stimulant it is a self-defeating process.
March 17th, 2013 at 2:14 pm
flipper,
What the hell are you talking about? The government has been saying for over a year now they want to address supply side issues in housing? Do they not mean it?
What exactly does the government need to fund as a result of approving the unitary plan? You do realise the unitary plan does not require funding for rail right? That they are different things?
Are you suggesting they actually want Auckland to stop growing?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Isn’t the per-home consent load much lower for high-density (many homes per building) than it is for sprawling subdivisions?
For example 72 stand alone suburban dwellings vs. a single 4×18 tower? Which would be faster to consent?
Vote:March 17th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Where are all of the people that will live in these new dwellings work?
Vote:Oh yeah, they will work for the Council and all of the subcontractors to the Council.
They will produce nothing – the Socialist way – go Len
March 17th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
There is a theme starting here.
Up to 171,000 homes will be built across 31 new and existing suburbs, alongside land for new shops, schools and transport.
The government said it would address a severe housing shortage that has locked many would-be buyers out of the market, but will not guarantee the plan will meet Sydney’s thirst for new homes.
It will also make the final decision on land to be rezoned, despite a pre-election promise that planning powers would be returned to communities. This is raising fears that plans will be rammed through without local support.
Advertisement
The government has promised “housing types to suit all budgets” will be built in existing suburbs and new areas at the city’s fringe. Construction will begin next year.
They will be built along new rail and light-rail links and coincide with major road projects, including the M5 west widening and WestConnex.
Premier Barry O’Farrell said the government wanted to “make home ownership a reality again”.
“The more blocks of land we can release, the greater downward pressure we can put on housing because it’s been so high for so long,” he said.
http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/170000-new-homes-to-revive-dream-20130316-2g7fr.html
Vote: