Town planners have been getting a hard time lately. Listening to the rhetoric of government ministers, developers and other commentators, you could be left thinking they were responsible for nearly all the challenges and inefficiencies in building more, and more affordable, housing.
It’s worth noting that council planners tasked with enforcing the current system of rules, are, like the rest of the industry, also being asked to get their heads around a steady stream of proposed changes from successive governments.
In their defence, I think every planner I know has a genuine interest in creating better living environments and community outcomes. And I say that despite that fact that our team often find themselves on the other side of the table from council planners, defending design proposals that break numerous planning rules. This is essentially the nature of the two professions – planning is largely about rules, while architects are trained to think outside of the box – two very different approaches to achieving desired outcomes.
All of that said, there aren’t many professionals working in the construction industry who wouldn’t agree that the current system needs improvement. Obtaining a Resource Consent can be a frustrating, unpredictable process which adds time and cost for developers. And yet the consenting process remains ineffective at preventing poor outcomes – there are some frankly terrible housing developments which get built despite planning rules.
Housing Minister Chris Bishop has essentially said that we should let the market sort it out, and that the economics of development, not planning rules, should guide what is built where. “Our cities need to look and grow the way that people actually want to live, and not the way a tidy-minded planner in a council cubical thinks people should live.”
Taken at face value this seems sensible, however it is key that the market accounts for the true cost of different types and locations of development, to avoid unintended and counterproductive outcomes. In particular, it is essential that the way we build enabling infrastructure avoids socialising costs while privatising benefits. This is generally expressed by councils as a statement that growth should pay for growth, and costs are typically passed on to developers through development contributions.
The full cost of developing greenfield sites should include not just the transport and water infrastructure and other amenities in that development area, but also upgrades to arterial routes and other infrastructure needed to handle the extra load. Likewise, costs related to in-fill development must also cover the relative impact on existing infrastructure and associated upgrades.
It's equally important that costs are signalled well in advance, so that developers can understand the full cost of development ahead of committing to property purchases.
The challenge lies in establishing an appropriate proportion of costs to pass on to individual developments, especially in the case of in-fill or brownfields sites. How, when, and by whom is the additional load assessed, and how much additional cost does the assessment itself add? What is the right balance between accuracy, fairness, and simplicity of implementation?
The more deeply you consider these issues, the more obviously complex they are. We should all beware over-simplification, resolving the challenges with the planning system in NZ requires a far more considered approach.
You can read the original column in the Waikato Business News here.
