Under a lot of pressure it seems, Auckland Council made the decision that the Auckland Plan would provide for quite a lot of urban sprawl. Around 170,000 dwellings of it over 30 years. Big chunks of land in the south, northwest and north were identified by “red boxes” as being places where investigation would need to take place in order to determine where this development goes.
I’m generally of the opinion that if we become cleverer about enabling intensification we may not need anywhere near as much sprawl as proposed by the Plan. Furthermore, I also wonder whether changing tastes, demographics and household sizes plus higher energy prices in the future are all working against the need for Auckland to build large areas of housing on its peripheries. These are all useful debates to keep having over time as I’m sure the Auckland Plan’s approach on this matter will be revisited regularly over time.
However, for now these decisions have been made and a paper to the Council’s Auckland Plan Committee outlines the timing and process for the investigation of these areas. The paper outlines what the investigation will entail – which seems predominantly around setting the “Rural Urban Boundary” within the investigation boxes to show which areas are to remain rural and which areas will be urbanised at some point over the next 30 years.
From reading through the paper it seems as though this first stage of investigation will not so much be looking at what happens where inside the “RUB”, but rather just at setting where the RUB goes. However, I imagine that in order to draw that line on the map some thought will need to go into what happens inside it: where town centres go, places that will be employment land, places that will be residential, good locations for parks and so on.
As I said earlier, there are three main areas to be investigated: in the north, the northwest and the south. It seems as though these three main areas will be clustered together with nearby areas to investigate – which seems to make sense as for example how and where Pukekohe grows is obviously related to what happens inside the really big red box south of Papakura. Here are the clusters:
Looking a bit closer, many of these areas are scarily big – for example the southern one stretches almost completely from Papakura to Pukekohe – and a long way to the west as well:
There are some really interesting issues that will need to be considered as part of this project I suspect, particularly if we are to create something better than the monotonous sprawl that infests many of the recently built parts of Auckland. A few thing that I think will need to be thought about include:
- How the railway line in the south is utilised – area a series of stations along that line the natural location for town centres?
- Whether much development is allowed to happen in the north and northwest before important public transport projects such as a Northwest Busway and the extension to the Northern Busway
- What kind of densities are expected within the new areas – more of the same McMansion sprawl or a variety of housing types including terraced housing and other attached housing types
- How important is it for Pukekohe and Kumeu/Huapai to stay as separate towns from Auckland or are we OK with them being “gobbled up” by the city?
Perhaps it might be possible to create new urban environments in these areas that actually work really well, places where people aren’t dependent on their cars to get everywhere. There’s a bit of a ‘blank slate’ available which hasn’t (yet) been stuffed up by past decisions so there’s a lot of potential. Unfortunately our track record isn’t particularly heartening when it comes to recent urban development.
I completely get the appeal of semi-rural living, but sprawl isn’t the way to achieve it. A series of towns or villages strung along really good transport links but with fiercely enforced limits is the way to do it. For if all the countryside is filled in with low level suburbia as we have been doing it completely ceases to be country or country village living at all.
I remember seeing a lifestyle interview with people living in Botany going on about how it’s so great to be so near to Clevedon and farms etc… but if we develop as we have been they of course won’t be close to anything but a bigger sea of houses and highways and cul-de-sacs. Neither well connected to work and play nor in a happy rural idyll.
1. and 2. could be done well, will they be?
3 is the ‘agglomeration benefit’ of PuFord: [sarcastic laugh] Oh dear, political planning.
I lived with friends on the outskirts of Munich for a few months and your proposal is exactly what happens there. The area was essential med/high density housing in the middle of a sea of green fields, but with an S-Bahn station right in the middle of it. So you had high quality housing in a quiet part of the countryside but with great transport links as well.
Agreed completely Patrick. Why shouldn’t Kumeu or Waimauku stay as villiage towns but with a busway connecting them to Auckland. Those areas could house a lot more people without becoming part of the city as such. Pukekohe and Drury are other obvious examples albeit with rail links instead.
Agree fully. One of the reasons why Auckland sprawl (and I woudl even include some parts of southern Auckland CITY COUNCIL area’s in that sense) is that there’s just no “definition”, no intermediate breaks. It’s all just a sea of small lot houses. So we should very strongly encourage places like Pukekohe and Kumeu to stay discrete towns, even if we make them grow.
Sorry, that was supposed to say “one of the reasons why I dislike the Auckland sprawl”
I can’t remember where I saw the idea (not mine), perhaps someone else put it up here or on the CBT forums, but how about making some of those zones industrual, and reclassifying some of our inner industrial areas like Penrose/Te Papapa as residental? This would have the benefit of keeping residences closer to the city centre(s) and in areas with a good PT backbone. In the case of the areas around and south of Papakura, you’d still build the stations, but as workplace destinations.
Bryce Kumeu and Waimauku are on the rail line. Would be nice if they could retain some village feel with a bit more density but unlikely.
Kumeu and Huapai have already sprawled up the highway to merge into one, classic strip development. Horrible unplanned mess. Service on railline nonexistent so no chance that it can shape these places. More hope from Busway, but this is not something that the ‘invisible hand’ can do; only planning and service provision.
But the rail line isn’t much use because it is so circuitous. Kumeu to downtown is 40km by rail, but only 25km on the SH16 corridor. Even getting to Henderson is 1/3 longer by rail than the busway/bus lanes corridor*.
*I’m assuming that the Auckland Plan proposal for a Northwestern Busway and bus lanes on Lincoln Rd actually happens.
As much as I like using rail, the reality is that a bus way will be faster from those areas out West but only if we can get a NW bus way built asap. There is a public meeting in Te Atatu on Monday night to discuss just that. I do despair every time I drive through Kumeu at how poorly planned the whole area is
It should be based on cul-de-sac’s, and one-way roads where applicable, and relatively low densities. Incredibly quiet and beautiful, richly green suburbs, no-one living next a streaming flow of internal combustion engines, and lots of replantation. But that’s just my taste.
Very soon Google full-automation technology will allow for feeder cars into a train or bus, for those who want it. So transit oriented development does not need to be a high-density vision.
Let property developers study the markets, and the available technologies, and make the call from there.
cul-de-sac’s are great as long as their are good pedestrian / cycle links between them. And I don’t mean a 1m wide overgrown alley.
You don’t necessarily need cul de sacs or one way roads to achieve that Andrew. The likes of Grey Lynn and Mt Eden have very lovely, beautify leafy green suburbs on very walkable/cyclelable grid street networks, and all through traffic on the arterials.
That too Nick. I think it’s been proven overseas (cannot remember where I read it) that people who live in ‘blocks’ walk and cycle more because they can just literally go around the block whereas people are much more likely to drive out of a cul-de-sac.
Oh! Can I mention the ULTra system which is now commercialised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ujd4wutddE
This was actually considered at one point for a Queenstown development. ULTra PRT is cheap, and easy to install in new developments because you can build it at-grade – not elevated. As a backbone to a new suburb it can, potentially, almost eliminate internal car use (er, conventional cars) and certainly provide an effective feeder system for buses or trains, in a low-density context.
In my view there are a couple key elements that will drive this – regardless of any central planning.
Firstly people’s life cycle. Inner city apartments suit young students/single etc being near the “action”. And that is what has always happened eg the old 5 bedroom flast in Mt Eden etc. We now have apartments. But next life stage requires more settlement ie to own not rent, and to provide room for kids – that’s when people head to two things, a house with 3-4 bedrooms and a good school. that is what has driven South growth, was good new schools.
the problem with intensification, is that stage lasts for decades, as oppossed to being happy in an apartment – so greater demand over that period until people move on to smaller/low maintenance.
So for 3-4 bedroom houses, I’d suggest schools drive alot of that. So where schools are placed is key.
From a transport angle, we then need to base decisions on the real world. A Family of 4 sees at least half it’s travel locally. So no long distance commute issues. Then often one partner is part-time, and often local (depending on ages of kids etc), and one fulltime. So next comes emplyment. Which is again why Albnay and South (Airport/East Tamaki are crucial) those new job areas will be fed from north and south communities. On the Shore 66% of employees live on the shore – one reason why bridge traffic has been stable (and dropping with job losses).
imho – we’re never going to be an economy driven by a CBD – and that’s why transport to job areas is crucial – CBD still only has 10% – and planners etc tend to be too focused on their own experince of work ie office based. Not the “normal” multi discipline businees or the 95% in firms <5-10 people.
Another people often ignore is the crucial roll of the business owner/CEO in locating a business – and their travel becomes a hiden key factor! So you also need a range of housing to support a business area – so a more affluent owner/ceo etc, can commute effectively. Which is again another reason Albany has seen employment growth. So in looking to the South, that is an element to consider.
Mark, while schools and family homes are important we actually have well more than we need of those already, what we need is many more affordable 1 and 2 bedroom units. In the 2006 census 49% of Auckland households had only one or two people in them, while 67% had three or less (http://monitorauckland.arc.govt.nz/our-community/households-and-families/household-size.cfm). The reality is less than a third of Auckland households need anything like a 3-4 bedroom house.
However, almost three-quarters (74%) of the housing stock in Auckland in 2006 had three or more bedrooms (http://monitorauckland.arc.govt.nz/built-environment/housing-and-construction/number-of-bedrooms.cfm).
Oh and the central city has approximately 30% of the regions jobs, not 10%. Ten percent refers to just the central downtown core, if you include the real extent of the central city from Newmarket to Wynyard it is almost a third. Add in Manukau, Takapuna, Henderson and New Lynn and about half of all jobs in Auckland are in those five business districts.
Mark, you and Nick R both make excellent points (also Jeremy below). If I may add a couple more thoughts to the mix:
(1) While I don’t know the numbers (there may be stats somewhere), I suspect that some of those 3-4 bedrooms are used as home offices, with minimal travel implications, and
(2) The elephant in the room: the family home is the primary form of retirement investment for many, especially those empty-nesters aged 50+. If those owners downsize to 1-2 bedroom apartments, where do they invest (other than in more real estate)? I don’t know the answer, but I believe that the stock market and finance companies are viewed with great suspicion by many. And Kiwisaver accounts generally haven’t performed well if you discount the taxpayer subsidies.
Oh and Mark the only reason bridge traffic is stable is the busway. Sure the amount of people driving themselves over the bridge each morning hasn’t budged in the last 7 or 8 years, but actually the number of people crossing the bridge has continued to climb year in year out. More commuters leave the Shore each morning than ever before. The only difference now is that many more people go by bus (Now up to about a 60/40 car/bus split). Overall the number of morning peak commuters are up very significantly on 2003 figures.
Good points made Mark
But are the contributors to this blog representative of Auckland demographics or are single males, people with no kids, CBD workers and students, transport planners over represented.
Intensification equates to schools rolls going up and rezoning, or if there is land in the area, more concrete and less grass for the schools so they can pack more in.
Work and employment patterns will continue to be more flexible and CBD importance will continue to decline no matter how much money planners want to throw at it.
Two of us are married/defacto with dependent children at home, one married without children and two unmarried without kids. That’s about bang on for Auckland demographics actually. All male in this boys club though.
Responding to the comments:
I agree you don’t need one-way roads to get that ‘leafy’ effect, but for short circuits I personally idealise them only because they are narrow.
Aesthetics are in large part a ratio game – the bigger the road, the more it dominates the context, so you feel like you are more living in roads than a garden, etc.
Also, of course you need that bike/walk way. With a new development you can build the walkways behind the houses so they are almost totally segregated from the roads (expect where they must cross over with roads, of course). This can make the walk much more pleasant. But slobs will never walk no matter you provide. So be it – their choice.
I would of thought extending Addison, Takanini and Alfriston would of the been the best ideas. First could fill in to Mill Road, and then next stage to Aardmore. These areas can be easily connected to stations at Takanini and Addison with bus links running along Walters Road, Airfield Road and Popes Road. These blocks are about 1km apart which is a perfect width as gives easy width to serve with buses, as is about same as Dominion to Sandringham.
Next should be Drury – Opaheke – Papakura South although there a big plans for industrial around here. See http://drurysouth.net.nz/
Still eaves a fair chunk of land in the Opaheke area that could be developed, only 3km from the station. These 2 areas should keep Auckland going in the south for a few decades to come, as hopefully rate of urban expansion in next few decades is much slower.
is the ULTra system cheaper to install than cycle lanes?
PBY: The ULTra at-grade guideways are competitive with a footpath on costs. For a small, local initiative you would not need stations – just the equivalent of bus stops. Locals would use a smart-card type system. Note the vehicles can be much smaller for a local application.
You can also entertain the idea of basing a suburb on it, so it replaces the car for the “last mile” – like a horizontal-elevator for a given development. Want a quiet leafy suburb? This would be the extreme.
I write about this here: http://andrewatkin.blogspot.co.nz/2009/06/club-economies.html
Jeremy: “Work and employment patterns will continue to be more flexible and CBD importance will continue to decline no matter how much money planners want to throw at it.”
This line is always thrown out, and it is, to put it kindly, highly unlikely. Auckland’s CBD has not “continued to decline”, rather it has continued its resurgence. Queen St pedestrian flow is up, the CBD footprint is expanding into Wynyard Quarter, the CBD will see (eventually) the regions only underground rail link and stations. Initiatives like the “Innovation Quarter” are planned not for a business park in Albany, but the CBD. The region’s (and nation’s) new conference center will be built….in the CBD
To suggest the CBD will decline is just another “but Auckland is different” mentality – somehow on matters relating to economics, jobs, transport etc that Auckland will buck the trend of almost everywhere else in the world. But Auckland is not different. And like any other major city, its CBD will only enhance its function as the economic, social and entertainemt hub of the region.
Furthermore if the CBD does decline then the whole city is in trouble. All evidence from around the world shows that the best performing cities all over have strong and vital centres. It is not an either or situation. It is either both types of places thrive or they both decline. This idea that the suburbs somehow thrive at the expense of the CBD is nonsense. Do you really want Auckland to suffer Detroit’s problems? Yes Detroit’s suburbs have done better than its centre, but overall both have declined enormously; be careful what you wish for.
It still doesn’t mean you have to come to town if that’s your preference though Jeremy.
Nick – the problem with a census is the “snapshot” affect. I guess I’m old and have seen many of these trends. So firstly we now have a 25,000+ foreign student industry – really developed in last 10-15 years. that has altered teh 1 bedroom stats. Knowing the industry, and it’s next stage of on site/on country provision, this has now peaked. Also we’ve seen the major social trends of last 20 years play out ie later marriage/higher divorce rates etc – again that “bubble” impact has now stabilised.
What we have is an aging population – but again, unlikely to drive up intensification demand as planned ie apartments around New Lynn. Their trend has been to larger border areas. It’s a simple financial model – but Coucnil planners haven’t gone out and tried to understand it.
So my perosnal view is we will see growth in the “family” home situation – and in fact it currently drives a lot of the pricing we see now.
The proble with the 49% 1 or 2 and 67% less than three, is where were they heading – they may have been about to have children and needed the extra space etc. And that probably relates well to the 74% housing with 3+ ie where peopel were heading.
I agree there is a need to “re-cycle”, but that can be done by understanding the retirement industry/ medical needs etc
And as someone said working from home is the big unkown. My office is in one unsed bedroom, my transport is minimal, and none during peak
There are over half a million households in Auckland, even if every single one of those 25,000 foreign students constituted their own single person household they would still be only a few percent of the total. The simple fact is that most regular Aucklanders don’t live in a Mum and Dad plus a couple of kids situation, and the proportion continues to slide. FYI it’s not just an effect in the 2006 census, the General Houshold Survey conducted every year shows exactly the same trend. Smaller families, more single parent families, and more couples and singles living alone.
It sounds like you’re saying that people should aim for their current housing to be the biggest house they might ever need, in case they end up getting married and having a couple of kids down the line. That sounds pretty unrealistic and unaffordable to me. The same thing works backwards in the context of an aging population, how many of our baby boomers can afford to run a four bedroom suburban house on a pension? Why should they stay in the biggest house they ever used to need.
I think we do actually have a lot of mobility in the housing market already, I think it is something like average rental tenancies of two point something years, and average how ownership tenure of five point something years. People do move house, and often. The real problem is that three quarters of the current housing stock is set up to best suit one third of the current households.
And yes I do realise people use of housing has changed, and that things like home offices and computer rooms are commonplace. But nevertheless, if half Auckland housholds have one or two people in them you don’t need a 3-4 bedroom house to have a home office. Not unless you need two or three home offices for some reason.
“understanding the retirement industry/ medical needs etc”
All of the evidence that I have seen, both anecdotal watching the life choices of grandparents and parents and from empirical from development on the ground and land use statistics, is that the ageing demographic leads to increased demand for smaller homes located near shops and facilities.
Some retirement village operators may offer distinctly poor financial deals, and there will always be the retirees that want to spend all day gardening a private estate, but the trend in preferences is pretty strong.
In short, central living in apartment type units is not just for the young, footloose and people of overseas origin. It’s just as much about serving the needs if the old.
For that matter, it’s about families. Why else is the Auckand Grammer Zone so sought after? if I could buy a robust, well-designed 3bed 100sqm 2 level terraced house with a 35sqm garden in the zone I’d move straight in with my wife and my two kids. Been there and done that in Europe for a while, loved it. Sadly there are not many of them, primarily because of overly restrictive zoning and the self-reinforcing CV-led inflationary system. Half of those that exist are leaky. Sigh, let down by government wherever you turn.
And while I don’t think everyone can expect a god-given right to live in the highly sought after inner suburbs, it is possible to increase how many people can realise that opportunity. We just need to do better with our planning system, and point out why this type of development is good for a neighbourhood community, not something to be loathed or feared.
hear hear
KLK/Patrick
Sorry I disagree re CBD. A CBD serves a specific high profile/high value business. PWC need taht level of exposure. But a CBD serves the country economy. Finance/Insurance/legal/accounting etc. These are very efficient businesses that cope with growth in revenue without floor m2 increases. A Bank just does 10m deals not 5m.
the planners figures double jobs – but does anyone really expect telecom to double its staff in 20 years? Air New Zealand / Vodafone/ASB ? it’s not goign to happen. We’ve seen best CBD waterfront grabbed by high profile – and they won’t need more. They will shift support functions around.
What we then have is a lot of space to re-cycle – that is the CBD’s real issue – and it going to education and residential. So jobs won’t go to 130k.
I also don’t think the 30% “central auck” figure is correct – but can’t find my data quickly – but Newmarket etc were only at the 15,000 job level from memory, and again new stuff is largely residential/retail.
My clients are often out in the non CBD and I think many peopel don’t see or value the small businesses in the penrsose/east tamaki areas – to be successful, that is where our exporting growth and future will come from. Often people don;t see the firm down a driveway off Rosebank road with 100 staff!
Commercially it’s next to impossible to economically re-cycle some of these sites, which has driven design/build out in Albany / Airport etc – and that gives us efficient profitable businesses. Those areas need to be linked to growth.
I’ll do a post outlining those figures of 11% CBD core vs. 30% central city. Naturally that comes from how you define ‘central city’ so I’ll make that explicit in the post. The main difference is that the traditional definition of the CBD (defined by the motorway interchange as the border) covers less than 2km2, while a land use based definition encompassing Newmarket, Newton, Freemans Bay, parts of Parnell, Ponsonby and Victoria Park covers about 10km2. The job density on the CBD fringe isn’t quite as high, but the city fringe covers about four times as much land as the CBD core.
Nick, I look forward to that, it will be very interesting. And of course being largely office-based employment, square metres per worker can be quite low. I recall that during the 1998 CBD power failure quite a few firms relocated to the suburbs, especially those that already had branches elsewhere. No doubt they came back again, but it wasn’t overly difficult to do in the short term. Today it would be even easier with mobile technology, fibre and the cloud.
Mark
Have a read of Harvard Economics professor Ed Glaeser’s The Triumph of the City where he patiently does the math for us all on how cities work, what makes for successful ones. And believe me the evidence does not support the idea that a declining centre is either necessary or helpful to the general success of the whole region. Penrose and Rosebank Road are the right place for manufacturing and distribution work, why would you expect those in the CBD? Why do you require no CBD for these things to prosper? Design build warehouse businesses should be at Albany and the Airport; who is expecting them in the CBD? The CBD will grow with an increase in residential, education, services, retail, and entertainment, as well as the head office type of occupancy that you mention. But not only the later. And I reiterate, businesses in the places you mention will find their fortunes improving with a thriving CBD [as will the 'burbs] so I fail to understand those who seem to wish for a decline in centre of our city. We’re all in this together.
I can also recommend Richard Florida’s The Great Reset, for what directions employment is heading to.
Mark – the doubling of jobs figures won’t come from existing businesses growing (although that will play a part). Its the new busineses – local and foreign – being attracted to the benefits provided by a growing CBD in a growing economy.
Again, this is not new. Its happened everywhere else. Auckland (and NZ) is no different. The CBD won’t decline (unless we really stuff up our planning). It will continue to grow from strength to strength and the region will be better for it.
Melbourne Age headline “Inner-city boom in house approvals as fringe fades”
http://theage.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/innercity-boom-in-house-approvals-as-fringe-fades-20120808-23ujl.html
Savvy Auckland developers read the trends elsewhere in Australasia and build accordingly. The not-so-savvy continue with their old business model until receivers are called in.
Get rid of the MUL’s so fringe land falls to real values, and then see what happens to demand and the businesses model.
There is no shortage of fringe development in Melbourne, but prices of inner city houses and units are still high. For example median house prices in Melton (a leapfrog dormitory town) is $290k, while in the inner suburb of Flemington it is $637k. Unit prices are $220k and $370k respectively. Those who are financially able therefore prefer to live closer to facilities, and in “better” suburbs.
While MUL’s could be removed with the stroke of a pen, someone still has to pay for the cost of infrastructure.
Get the developers to pay for it. They will pass it on to their customers – as they do. And what do you think is cheaper in terms of infrastructure – a new fringe development, or demolish-and-rebuild for more capacity in built up areas? Make sure rail people pay the full cost of their infrastructure too, thank you very much.
Melbourne doesn’t have an MUL, not as we know it anyway. The expand the boundary to ensure a 20 year supply of land going forward, more or less annually. Their MUL only exists to prevent leapfrog development (i.e make sure growth occurs contiguously from the fringe). It doesn’t restrict the availability of greenfields land at all, there is two decades worth of it inside the boundary.
As for what is cheaper, levelling a couple of disused car yards or an old warehouse is a lot cheaper than grading and shaping a subdivision, building new roads, erecting light poles, laying sewer and water lines etc.
Patrick/KLK
Sorry you miss-understand what I’m saying – I’m not saying a declining CBD is godo or happening. What I’m saying is a CBD in an Auckland style (ie not an international finance hub), supports the wider economy. And taht as a very efficient part of that, it won’t grow as much as the rest of the job areas. So the new/expanding business out in Rosebank, have their Auditors/Lawyers/banks in the CBD – and a few extra firms there, and you won’t see much if any growth in CBD numbers to support those extra businesses. Our CBD is great – by releasing Wynyard / western side, it’s moved on from 1970/80 Office blocks to modern large floor plates – and they have a great future there. But they won’t double, and there isn;t the space for new firms of similar size. And at any rate what major accounting firm isn’t there already. The CBD will tick along just fine. And what we’ll see is the recycling of buildings to their most economic use – which I suspect will be education/apartments. Which is fine, but you lose “employment” m2 to other uses – which is why I think we’ll never hit 130k workers in CBD.
Patrick – yes read Florida – in fact have been lucky enough to discuss Auckland with him personally. I’ve also started in CBD 30 years ago, dealing with many firms, Head Offices etc, and still have clients there. So have pretty direct knowledge. In fact even lived there with a few hundred others in late 70′s! I’ve also been involved with CBD strategy, and sat on CBD board for 6 years – researched with all key real estate/property owners developers, so have a pretty good gut feel of where it’s heading. but just my opinions – but for last 9 years, they’ve all become accurate/factual.
IMHO – biggest risk/issue is recycling buildings and flight of the education sector – and that’s where effort should go – on risk minimisation. Not sure if you’ve done it – but when I was in research mode, I visited a lot of buildings, looking at businesses / floor areas etc and a lot of the old small businesses eg import/export etc, had been replaced by education – and a lot of vacancies in that C/D grade building. The economics of retro-fitting apartmenst is very tricky, and may see some values drop to allow a retro-fit.
So land prices drop on the fringe because no one wanted it in the first place, then all of a sudden people will be knocking down the owner’s door to get it?
Flying pigs, anyone?
People will live where they want to live. If that means paying exhorbitant rents for inner city living, amounts that would service a mortgage out on the fringes, that’s what they’ll do.
Oh look – they already are…..
Does anyone take any notice or care about the rural land owners being forced off their land?
Go on?
Perhaps some do not want to move or sell their land but are being forced to given the extreme rates being imposed on them given inflated land values. They have no choice at all.
While some might not want to move, surely if the urban limits are shifted to include your land then all of a sudden your retirement is sorted big time.
So? What if it was already sorted before? What if historically your land had been in your family for generations and now you have been rated out? Life is not all about money and cashing in on whatever bubble might be inflated at any given moment.
OK Can’t resist this. I’ve been watching the blog recently but haven’t made any comments. I’m affected by Puhoi to Warkworth. I have a 5 acre block south of Warkworth and the bloody thing is going straight through my house. Since Nov 2010, I’ve been fighting like hell to get the thing cancelled and finally gave up a few months ago when I realised that Joyce and Brownlee were determined to go ahead regardless. So I decide to sell up and move on. Problem is, that I can’t sell my house to anyone other than NZTA who initially told me they would buy it and are now telling me that they have no funds to do so. They tell me that they cannot even start negotiations until October 2013, about the time that they are due to issue the “Notice of Requirement” under the Public Works Act. So my wife and I will have been held hostage by NZTA for 3 years, during which time we have been threatened, strung along and treated like dirt for daring to live in the way of their bloody motorway. The govt. are denying me a basic right ie. to sell a property that I own. Under NZ law, there is nothing I can do.
Sorry to hear that Bob.
I personally think that the NZTA doesn’t want to invest in this highway to an extent where the project can’t be stopped.
They know the project is uneconomical, but have to complete it anyway because of government policy.
They want to make it easy for another government to stop it.
Unfortunately you are stuck in the middle of this.
“I personally think that the NZTA doesn’t want to invest in this highway to an extent where the project can’t be stopped.”
I don’t see any evidence to support your conclusion, apart from wishful thinking. What Bob describes is pretty much the normal pattern for public works in NZ. Once a project is proposed that may impact your property then that property is unsellable. The 200-and-something properties in the way of the rail tunnel are in exactly the same position. It’d be hard to enforce a situation where government or councils were bound to purchase an offered property, because there must inevitably be years worth of business cases and public consultations before a project and a route is confirmed. Maybe the solution is for government or councils to be required to pay some percentage above the valuation so that property owners would be compensated for the uncertainty, and because the higher price on offer would turn the properties effected in to good investments that owners would want to hold on to. Maybe 150% of valuation would do the trick?
Blighted properties aren’t restricted to public works either. I imagine there are thousands or tens of thousands of properties that are currently unsellable due to the requirement for earthquake strengthening. The government can change earthquake standards, force you to upgrade your building, and you’re practically unable to sell it until you’ve spend hundreds of thousands or millions of bucks on strengthening.