Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland, New
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland, New
Zealand: Issues and Challenges
(Plan making in delivering intensification: a case study of Auckland, New Zealand)
Wen LIU, Lee BEATTIE, Errol HAARHOFF, Shaoyao TANG, The University of Auckland,
New Zealand
Abstract
Urban growth policies that promote housing intensification and higher density development
have been widely embraced in development strategies of many cities in Australia and New
Zealand, part of the Europe, and the North America. Typically, this takes the form of
intensification development in and around the defined transit nodes and city centres spread
across the metropolitan regions. The local government council for the Auckland region (the
Auckland Council) also seeks to implement a compact city model, after the amalgamation of
the previous regional council and seven territorial authorities into a unitary authority in 2010.
It aims to encourage most of its future growth and developments in and around, existing and
proposed town and transit centres, with the goal of achieving the ‘most liveable city’.
However, there are growing concerns that urban planning approaches currently used are not
effectively delivering intensification outcomes aspired. The uncertainties on what the future
might hold in practice and whether the plan can realise the anticipated outcomes remain as
one of the significant challenges both policy makers and planning practitioners are facing.
Drawing on the Auckland experience, this article adds to a relatively small but growing
number of studies investigating on the efficacy of urban planning systems to deliver
outcomes that are well aligned with the goals of urban growth management strategies. This
paper critically reviews and discusses the Auckland case on the delivery of policy outcomes,
with particular attention to delivering residential intensification and higher density housing
policy outcomes. Connecting with ongoing researches, we contribute to the understanding of
the local government land use and its plan making to deliver the anticipated policy goals. We
suggest that the land use planning should be accompanied by a more thorough discussion
and review of planning tasks and goals, and a deeper understanding on the role of plan
regulation and its actual implementation under a market driven planning system.
Keywords: Plan making and implementation evaluation; Land use plan; Plan methods;
Policy outcomes; Residential intensification; Rational comprehensive model
1. Introduction
The urban growth strategy of Auckland is aligned with many international planning strategies,
such as ‘Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our Future’, ‘Melbourne 2030’, and ‘City of Cities: A
Plan for Sydney's Future’. The central goal in each of these policies is the containment of low
density, peripheral growth. Although the compact city model may have a wide range of merits
((Neuman, 2005; Breheny, 1997), the extent to which these are actualized largely rely on
how intensification actually is delivered. Common to the broad range of literature on urban
growth management, the ‘gap’ between strategic planning and what has been achieved is
evident in the argument for the ‘compact’ urban form (Woodcock et al., 2010). The
transformation of the rhetoric of the residential intensification model into reality is of profound
influence yet has enjoyed limited empirical analysis. In Auckland’s recent metropolitan
strategies, the more prominent of the challenges have been concerns on the plan objectives
for delivering intensified built environment and the efficacy of planning tools for attaining
these associated plan objectives.
As New Zealand’s largest city and fastest growing region, Auckland is home to about a third
of the population of the country (around 1.5 million people in 2017). It is the principal
1LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
commercial centre of the country and has a diverse economic base. Historically,
development in Auckland urban housing market has been dominated by low density
suburban housing built on comparatively large plots (Dixon and Dupuis, 2002; Haarhoff et al.,
2012; Beattie, 2010). In Auckland, the compact city model is seen by planners as a key to
containing urban growth largely within an urban boundary, through a combination of infill
within city boundaries, limited peripheral development, and higher density subdivisions.
However, since the adoption of urban growth strategies from 1990s, the new dwelling
development in Auckland still focused on standalone dwellings, predominantly in green field
space (Berke et al., 2006; Beattie, 2013).
In 2007, under the pressing disputation on the Auckland’s governance, the government
assembled a Royal Commission to explore the potential to assure long-term sustainable
development for Auckland (Salmon, Bazley and Shand, 2009). The Royal Commission
concluded in its 2009 report that the Auckland’s planning process were complex, lack of
integrity and community engagement, and the regional relationship was fragmented and
weak (Royal Commission, 2009). The Royal Commission’s recommendations included
replacement of the previous regional council and seven local authorities with a single unitary
Auckland Council, and establishing one integrated planning framework with one new spatial
plan (the Auckland Plan, the AP) and one statutory development control plan (the Auckland
Unitary Plan, the AUP), to provide the strategic direction creating the basis for integrated and
aligned decision making and planning functions (Beattie, 2011). After two weeks, the national
government accepted the Royal Commission’s recommendations to create a unitary council
by publishing ‘Making Auckland Greater’, aims to make Auckland a ‘super city’ under one
single local authority, and introduced the ‘spatial plan’ as a new planning approach in
Auckland. The establishment of the new ‘spatial plan’ - Auckland Plan set up the strategies to
deliver intensification into diversified arenas, including economic, environment, transport and
sustainable developments (Auckland Council, 2012). Turning these visions into reality is
operatised through the new statutory land use plan, the Auckland Unitary Plan.
Taking Auckland as an example, this article aims to investigate the efficacy plan making and
implementation directed towards higher density development in traditionally sprawl cities. In
drawing on the plan-making process and content of the plans, this article critically discusses
the plans’ capability, issues and challenges to deliver residential intensification. The next
section briefly outlines the relevant literature of plan making towards intensification and
delivery of intensification strategies. The third section describes the development process of
the Auckland Plan and Auckland Unitary Plan, it also critically examines the efficacy of plan
making and content of the plans, identifying the issues and barriers of plans to achieve the
intended intensification outcomes. The discussions and conclusions on the issues and
challenges of the plan making and content to deliver intensification outcomes in Auckland are
presented at the end of the article.
2. Plan making and implementation towards intensification
Movement towards the achievement of intensification as a means of improving urban
sustainability and enhanced liveability is “a complex process that requires action by both the
public and private sectors” (Boon, 2010). Many factors apply in the delivery of housing
intensification policies. The exact location, form, pace, and pattern of implementation rely on
a combination of specific elements. These elements include, but are not limited to, planning
policy, market response, technological tools, and community engagement (Liu et al., 2018;
Adams and Tiesdell, 2005; Haarhoff et al., 2012). Managing the process of housing
intensification involves balancing the multiple and often conflicting interests of the
established and prospective stakeholders, while simultaneously engaging in the pursuit of
broader policy objectives when facing contemporary changes (Ruming, 2014). Planning
policies and regulations are essential determinants of the effectiveness and implementation
of intensification. However, researchers have pointed out that there is a lack of a delineator
of the extent to which plans are being implemented after they are adopted ((Liu et al., 2018;
Brody and Highfield, 2005).
2LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
Therefore, researchers have raised the issues of searching for the means to evaluate
planning outcomes (Brody and Highfield, 2005; Berke et al., 2006; Searle and Filion, 2011;
Beattie, 2010), and the evaluation of plan implementation (Tian and Shen, 2011; Filion and
Mcspurren, 2007). New evaluation models and methods have been applied to examine the
effects and results, and also the capacity and effectiveness of planning activities (Brody and
Highfield, 2005; Chapin, Deyle and Baker, 2008; Alexander, 2009; Laurian et al., 2010).
Khakee (2003), Alexander (2006), Oliveira and Pinho (2009, 2011) articulate the evolution of
evaluation methods from three different perspectives: (i) a program policy perspective, (ii) a
welfare economics perspective, and (iii) a planning theory perspective. These evaluation
approaches provided the foundation for the subsequent improvement in the quality of plans
and planning systems.
The existing researches on plan implementation evaluation in New Zealand mainly employed
a conformance-based approach, which is concerned with the alignment between the
outcomes and the goals of plans (Laurian et al., 2004a, 2006; Beattie and Haarhoff, 2011).
Some academics have begun to ask how much influence a plan can have over the urban
planning process in New Zealand (Berke et al., 2006; Laurian et al., 2004a). The findings of
Laurian et al. (2004a) demonstrate the implementation of plans varies greatly. Laurian et al.
(2004b) raised the question of whether the plan quality can influence its implementation.
They found that plan implementation is largely driven by the quality of the plan and the
resources of the planning agencies. The academics increasingly recognised the quality and
strength of the adopted plans are not necessarily correlated with implementation of their
contents and rules (Brody and Highfield, 2005).
In order to reflect existing problems and contradictions, some works have attempted to link
intensification theory to the local planning innovations (Buxton and Scheurer, 2007; Haarhoff
et al., 2012; Janssen-Jansen, 2013), the planning implications (Williams, 1999; Randolph,
2006), as well as the capacities and achieved degree of intensification growth (Woodcock et
al., 2010). However, government and urban planners still have difficulty linking the
implementation knowledge to actual intensification projects (Berke et al., 2006, Beattie,
2013). There seems to be a gap between policy intention and implementation practice. Also,
the mainstream of research on plan implementation has been focused on measurement of
land use development patterns, and performance assessment of comprehensive plans
(Brody and Highfield, 2005), while a few of them have provided policy improvement for
planning performance at the local level (Waldner, 2009). In the Auckland context, “the link
between plans and outcomes is at the heart of the urban planning process, that is, it is
assumed that the plan will deliver a means of action to achieve its intended outcomes on the
ground” (Haarhoff et al., 2012).
3. Issues and challenges of plan making to deliver intensification in Auckland
3.1 The ambition and reality of the Auckland Plan
With the aspirations to make Auckland the most liveable city through ‘quality compact’, the
first ever spatial plan in the region – the Auckland Plan was developed to provide a 30-year
vision to better “align its internal operations, actions and investments” (Auckland Council,
2012). Auckland Council drafted its first ever spatial plan in the September of 2011, with the
public submissions and consultation from 20 September to 31 October of 2011 (Auckland
Council, 2011). The vision of the Auckland Plan aims to achieve the ‘most liveable city’
through ‘quality compact’, to achieve its envisaged regional development through aligning its
investments and operations (Auckland Council, 2012). In the March of 2012, the Auckland
Plan was officially adopted.
The Auckland Plan (2012) is a non-statutory urban growth strategy which aims to implement
a compact city model for Auckland so that it can become ‘the most liveable city in the world’
(Auckland Council, 2012). The plan delineates a series of tools to promote urban
intensification within the proposed Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) so as to discourage urban
expansion at the urban fringe (Auckland Council, 2012). Based on population projections,
3LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
Auckland needs to accommodate an additional one million inhabitants by 2040, and the
Auckland Plan proposes that 60 to 70 per cent of the new dwellings will be located within the
existing urban areas and 30 to 40 per cent in new green field and existing rural areas and
coastal settlements (Auckland Council, 2012; Duguid and Chan, 2013).
Turning this vision into reality requires the use of a broad range of growth management
strategies and planning policies. The delivery mechanisms of the Auckland Plan include the
Unitary Plan as one of main tools to define land use activities and zoning to achieve high
quality spatial development, “the Long Term Plan (LTP) (which sets out the activities,
services and investments planned for the next 10 years) to deliver the outcomes of the
Auckland Plan”, and to provide the budget for the implementation of the projects and actions.
Local board plans and agreements would emphasize the priorities and projects identified by
each local board and community. A range of core strategies and place-based plans are
important tools for implementing the Auckland Plan, also in achieving design, social and
environmental outcomes (Figure 1) (Auckland Council, 2012). The Auckland Unitary Plan is
the major tool to implement the directions of the Auckland Plan. It developed objectives,
policies and methods (including rules) which set different goals and provisions to achieve
quality urban growth in Auckland (Auckland Council, 2013).
Figure 1: Implementation framework of The Auckland Plan
Source: The Auckland Plan (2012), Auckland Council
However, close analysis of the Auckland Plan’s measures suggests a rather different reality.
Firstly, due to the lack of civic participation and limited timeframe for plan making, the plan
content and quality is insufficient to deliver high quality intensification strategies. Developed
in September 2011, the first Auckland Plan was then officially adopted in the March of 2012,
less than 18 months after Auckland Council was established (Auckland Council, 2012). The
limited timeframe for plan making raised concerns on how the plan can be delivered in
meaningful way in such a limited timeframe, as the plan is dealing with a range of complex
transitional issues (Beattie, 2011). The international experience from Vancouver and
Stockholm revealed the necessity of the process for civic participation and long timeframe to
ensure the quality of policies. As described by Imran and Pearce (2015), a comparatively
small proportion of communities engaged in the development of the Auckland Plan.
Secondly, the undeliverable visions in the Auckland Plan and the limited mechanisms and
tools for plan implementation make the effectiveness and deliverability of the planning
content questionable (Rowe, 2012). A number of academics raised the concerns on whether
the planning content of the Auckland Plan is achievable. For example, Gunder (2014)
questions that part of the visions in the Auckland Plan consist ‘a range of impossible fantasy
outcomes”. He points out the proposition of 5 percent annual GDP growth rate over 30-year
period is an example of the fantasy. The effectiveness of the Auckland Plan is also
questioned by Imran and Pearce (2015), they claim that the flaws of Auckland Plan include
its “plan ownership, lack of civic participation, and the imbalance of transport strategy and
institutional inertia” (pp. 25).
4LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
Thirdly, the plan content and implementation tools and processes to deliver the spatial
planning, in part, are deficient. Due to the lack of government commitment and inadequate
funding strategy, the implications of the Auckland Plan and its capacity to achieve intended
outcomes are contentious (Beattie, 2011). This raises the question of how an untested
planning approach work in practice if there are quality and implementation issues with the
existing statutory based plans in the region (Rowe, 2012). Furthermore, the issues of urban
amenities, parking zone, and design quality in the developments are questioned in terms of
whether the envisaged high-quality outcomes are attainable (Haarhoff et al., 2012).
Lastly, the flaws of plan implementation partly lie in the quality of urban planning practice and
the quality of the plans themselves. There was no guiding for the Auckland Plan provided in
the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), which is the national legislation which outlines
the processes of “resource consent, council plans and designations, proposals of national
significance” (Ministry for the Environment, 2018). The delivery of an effective infrastructure
network will be difficult if there is no a clear, coherent strategic direction. Moreover, the new
local governance still has to fund through central government contributions, in particular, for
the regional infrastructure programmes, which would potentially make the plans ineluctable
to political intervention (Imran and Pearce, 2015).
In sum, the content and implementation of the Auckland Plan remain contentious for the
effectiveness of its plan content, lack of citizen participation, the challenges of policy
achievement in practices, and the potential political intervention due to the heavily reliant on
central government funding. The flaws of plan implementation partly lie in the quality of urban
planning practice and the quality of the plans themselves.
3.2 The challenges of the Auckland Unitary Plan to deliver intensification
The AUP has experienced a number of variations in the whole plan making process. The
draft Unitary Plan was released in March 2013 to receive 11-week informal feedback from
March to May 2013. This was held in seeking to encouraging community engagement to
assist in improving the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (the PAUP), which was notified on
30 September 2013—18-month time for developing the Plan for notification. The Plan
combines provisions associated with management of coastal, air, land and water resources,
intending to deliver a quality compact city in the region (Liu et al., 2018).
The Auckland Council then proposed to the national government that it recommend an
Independent Hearing Panel (the IHP) to hear and consider submissions on the notified Plan
and make recommendations on the final plan. The central government agreed with this
proposed change of process, and this notably shortened the timeframe to put the Unitary
Plan in place. Between September 2013 to February 2014, over 13,000 submissions from
the public, government, developers, planning professionals and community groups are made.
The notification of Summary of Decisions Requested report and further submissions were
made from 11 June to 22 July 2014 (Liu et al., 2018).
Beginning from the September 2014 to May 2016, the IHP held 249 days of hearings across
60 topics. On the 22nd July of 2016, the Auckland Council received all the recommendations
on the Plan from the IHP. The Council decisions and its decision version of the Plan are
notified on 19 August 2016. On 8 November 2016, the Council released its annotated
decisions version to show the parts that are under appeal and the parts that can now be
‘treated as operative’ (Liu et al., 2018; Auckland Council, 2016) (Figure 2).
The delivery mechanisms of the Auckland Plan include the AUP as the main tools to
implement the directions of the Auckland Plan and provide zonings to integrate and prioritize
spatial development. The AUP aims to give legal effect to the Auckland Plan, through
developing objectives, policies and methods (including rules) which set different goals and
provisions to enable quality, sustainable, compact development in Auckland.
Indeed, the AUP is a combined regional policy statement, regional coastal plan, regional plan
and district plan (Auckland Council, 2013). The plan tries to provide guidance and serves as
5LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
the primary document which will be capable of meeting the obligations of the unitary authority
and find a new balance between fostering positive natural environment effects and protecting
community health and wellbeing. The concept of the plan is the ‘quality compact’, which aims
to provide for development both up and out, based on up to 70% of future population growth
being located within the existing urban area (Auckland Council, 2013).
Figure 2: The history and earlier versions of the AUP (Auckland Council, 2016).
Vague and weak objectives and policies
The Auckland Unitary Plan, as a statutory plan, shall provide direct legal effects for land use
development, rather than stipulating vague or weak policies for future urban development.
However, the objectives and policies of the PAUP are overall inexplicit and weak to present a
proposed development and estimate a potential scheme. Some of the objectives and policies
are either unclear or non-specific to guide and regulate the development and some of them
lack of clear definitions and assessment methods to evaluate whether the proposed
development achieve the articulated policy outcomes.
For example, Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB zone) in the PAUP is defined
as “a high-intensity zone enabling a greater intensity of development than previously
provided for”. One objective of the THAB zone is to “achieve development is of a density that
is appropriate for the physical attributes of the site, any infrastructure constraints, and the
planned urban residential character of the neighbourhood” (Auckland Council, 2013). This is
ambiguous to predict the development envisioned by the plan making authority on what is
‘appropriate’. Also, the plan does not provide definition or assessment methods on ‘urban
residential character of neighbourhood’.
Another example of unclear objectives and policies in the PAUP is the mixed-use zone. The
PAUP does not explicitly put forward that it has to have a mix of residential and business,
therefore, developers could have all business or have all residential, or have a mix of
business and residential. Further, the plan does not really deal well with how to get that mix.
On one hand, it can potentially provide more flexibility, but it relies on the provisions of clear
and strong objectives and policies to minimise the interpretation differentials. On the other
hand, it raises issues of the possible complexity in assessing in terms of balance and weight.
6LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
This altogether leaves uncertainty for development sector and may result in difficulties in
understanding among plan users, for example, inconsistent interpretations between
developers and their planning consultants, and between planning consultants and planning
officials. This could further bring about delay the consenting process due to the difficulties
and longer timeframe required for solving different interpretations and discussions on what
are acceptable and correct, causing the delivery of residential intensification uncertain. The
existing objectives and policies are overall generic and put greater emphasis on development
rules rather than policy outcomes, which misaligns with the planning theory and framework in
Auckland that adopts a conformance-based plan making model (Beattie, 2010).
Regulations for intensification are weak
In order to achieve intensification, it is essential that stronger regulations and policies that
constrain low density developments are developed in the Plan. Nevertheless, in the PAUP,
there is no minimum density control or maximum unit size for two or more than two-bedroom
units, which means the larger size apartments can still be built in the (zone) areas
designated to provide intensified buildings. This is contrary to the plan goals of the PAUP to
deliver intensification and higher density housing.
In addition, there is no guarantee to achieve higher densities with a variety of housing types.
The direct responding method for building height variations supporting public transport, social
infrastructure and the vitality of the adjoining centre are also missing in the PAUP. It seems
the local planning authority (Auckland Council in this case) is timid in putting forward strong
regulations that need to rely on collaborations and efforts from other sectors and agencies.
It is also worth noting that the PAUP standards concern on the site-specific development
rules, other than from the regional and neighbouring scale. For instance, the PAUP sets up
rules to protect on-site amenities, however, there is no regulation to protect and enhance the
neighbouring amenities. This observation reiterates the central message of the inefficiency of
plan making in the PAUP to undertake the entire region and the previous plan and
development into plan making process.
Misalignment with the market practice
The historical problem of insufficient provision of intensive housing in Auckland highlights the
importance of paying more attention on those responsible for implementing planning policies
on the ground: the development sector. The complicated interplays between planning
officials, property developers and potential consumers can significantly affect the
implementation of the targeted higher density developments, leading to a situation where
“different stakeholders had different views on what might constitute ‘good’ medium density
housing” (Haarhoff et al., 2012; Dupuis and Dixon, 2002).
The commitment of urban land developers to planning objectives, and their capacity to meet
the objectives of intensified development in practice, can directly affect the plan
implementation (Ruming, 2010; Berke et al., 2006; Laurian, 2004a). However, change can be
difficult, as the developers may not always comply with the conditions and obligations
stipulated by the zoning context and the consumer preferences (Gunter, 2013; Bowman and
Thompson, 2009).
It is also critical to recognise that other regulations and policies may be needed to fill in the
gaps where plan methods fall short for achieving intensification outcomes, with the minimum
density control was not clearly regulated. The flexibility provided to developers through
claiming the objectives are achieved leaves them too many chances. The planning
authorities shall establish clear and well-defined standards to provide a regulatory option for
interested developers as a mechanism for fostering intensification. The complexity of
interacting developers and planning system under the rational plan making framework
underscores the importance of setting out clear and well-regulated development standards to
guide the activities of development sector.
7LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
Requires plan evaluation and review
Despite the apparent benefits of plan evaluation on facilitating more effective implementation,
better communicating the intentions of decision makers, and ensuring plans include accurate
information and reflect community values, the planning professions have been ineffective in
applying evaluation methods, particularly the evaluation of achieving the plan outcomes
(Guyadeen and Seasons, 2016; Brody et al., 2006). Evaluation in planning has yet generally
concentrated on plan development process with limited attention on plan outcomes
(Guyadeen and Seasons, 2016; Oliveira and Pinho, 2011).
The urban planning policies in New Zealand context are facing the challenges that issues
arise through implementation phase but not through the development of plans. The literature
suggests the limited guidance on gauging the success or failure of plans are largely resulted
from disagreements on how to evaluate the outcomes of plans (Oliveira and Pinho, 2011).
This research reinstates the significance to develop and implement evaluation frameworks
that urge plan making department to continually evaluate their efforts.
4. Conclusion and Discussion
This article critically reviews the plan development process, plan content and implementation
adopted or proposed by the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan. Delivering on the
aims of these urban growth strategies “has been difficult and controversial” in Auckland
(Haarhoff et al., 2012). The content of the first ever spatial plan – the Auckland Plan has
been pointed out being ambitious and bold (Imran and Pearce, 2015), and its implementation
has been questioned for several reasons, including the effectiveness and quality of the plan
content, lack of citizen participation, the challenges of policy achievement in practices, and
the potential political intervention due to the heavily reliant on central government funding (for
examples, Gunder, 2014; Imran and Pearce, 2015; Beattie, 2010).
This research also demonstrates that the plan making and implementation tools and
processes to deliver the planning outcomes, in part, are deficient. This research gives rise to
three core issues in the plan making and implementation of the Auckland Plan and the
Auckland Unitary Plan. Firstly, the plan content and quality of the Auckland Plan is
insufficient to deliver high quality intensification strategies. Secondly, the possible fantasies
in the Auckland Plan and the inexplicit, weak objectives and policies of the PAUP can
potentially lead to the misalignment between the outcomes and plan objectives. This affirms
that the plan making processes and tools need to be more clear, flexible and strong to
ensure its delivery of plan visions. A more thorough review of planning tasks and goals is
required for local planning department (Auckland Council) to implement the intended plan
objectives and goals. Thirdly, a deeper understanding on the role of plan regulation and its
actual implementation under a market driven planning system are required to ensure the
alignment between the Auckland Unitary Plan and the market viable developments in both
locations and housing types.
In terms of the connections and mechanisms between the Auckland Plan and the Auckland
Unitary Plan, under the political pressure and other factors, there is a risk that some of the
policy intervention in the Auckland Plan would be reversed during the preparation process of
the PAUP. The potential remains for political pressures for the decisions on the final
Auckland Unitary Plan to be inconsistent with the Auckland Plan. Even though the current
planning frameworks and their methods are responsible for giving effect to the higher-level
strategic policy, however, less clear from this research is that the alignment between the
Auckland Plan and its main implementation tool – the Unitary Plan, which would remain as a
key field for future research.
8LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
References:
Adams, David and Tiesdell, Steven (2010) “Planners as market actors: Rethinking state-
market relations in land and property”, Planning Theory & Practice, Vol.11, No.2, 187-207.
Alexander, Ernest (2006) Evolution and status: where is planning evaluation today and how
did it get here?, In: Alexander E. (ed.) Evaluation and Planning, Evolution and Prospects.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 3-16.
Alexander, Ernest (2009) “Dilemmas in Evaluating Planning, or Back to Basics: What is
planning for?”, Planning Theory & Practice, Vol.10, No.2, 233-244.
Auckland Council (2011) Auckland Unleashed: The Auckland Plan Discussion Document,
Auckland: Auckland Council.
Auckland Council (2012) Auckland Plan, Auckland: Auckland Council. Retrieved from:
http://theplan.the aucklandplan.govt.nz/
Auckland Council (2013) Draft Unitary Plan Report on Phase 2 Engagement, Available at:
http://shape auckland.co.nz/draft-unitary-plan-feedback/
Auckland Council (2016) The Auckland Unitary Plan, Available at:
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-
strategies/unitary-plan/history-unitary-plan/Pages/default.aspx.
Beattie, Lee (2010) “Changing urban governance in the Auckland region: prospects for land
use planning”, Proceedings of the 23rd Association of European Schools of Planning
Conference. Helsinki, Finland.
Beattie, Lee (2011) “The Auckland Spatial Plan: The Challenge of Implementation”.
Proceedings of the 4th World Planning School Congress. Perth, Australia.
Beattie, Lee and Haarhoff, Errol (2011) “Governance: How to Achieve Urban Growth
Management in Practice, a Practitioner Perspective”, Conference Proceedings: New
Urbanism and Smart Transport. Perth, Australia.
Beattie, Lee (2013) “Evaluating district plans in Auckland, New Zealand: do they deliver their
intended outcomes?”, Doctoral Dissertation for Degree of doctor of Philosophy. The
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Berke, Philip, Backhurst, Michael, Day, Maxine, Ericksen, Neil, Laurian, Lucie, Crawford, Jan
and Dixon, Jennifer (2006) “What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of
local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand”, Environment and planning B:
planning and design, Vol. 33, No.4, 581.
Boon, John (2010) “The interplay of market forces and government action in the achievement
of urban intensification: the case of Auckland, New Zealand”, Journal of Urbanism:
International Research on Place making and Urban Sustainability, Vol.3, No.3, 295-310.
Bowman, Troy and Thompson, Jan (2009) “Barriers to implementation of low-impact and
conservation subdivision design: Developer perceptions and resident demand”, Landscape
and Urban Planning, Vol.92, No.2, 96-105.
Breheny, Michael (1997) “Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable?”, Cities, Vol.14, No.4,
209-217.
Brody, Samuel, Carrasco, Virginia, and Highfield, Wesley (2006) “Measuring the adoption of
local sprawl reduction planning policies in Florida”, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, Vol.25, No.3, 294-310.
Buxton, Michael and Scheurer, Jan (2007) “Density and Outer Urban Development in
Melbourne”, Urban Policy and Research, Vol.25, No.1, 91-111.
9LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
Brody, Samuel and Highfield, Wesley (2005) “Does Planning Work? Testing the
Implementation of Local Environmental Planning in Florida”, Journal of the American
Planning Association, Vol.71, No.2, 159-175.
Chapin, Timothy, Deyle, Robert and Baker, Earl (2008) “A parcel-based GIS method for
evaluating conformance of local land-use planning with a state mandate to reduce exposure
to hurricane flooding”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 35, No.2,
261-279.
Dixon, Jenny and Dupuis, Ann (2003) “Urban Intensification in Auckland, New Zealand: A
Challenge for New Urbanism”, Housing Studies, Vol.18, No.3, 353-368.
Filion, Pierre and Mcspurren, Katheleen (2007) “Smart Growth and Development Reality:
The Difficult Coordination of Land Use and Transport Objectives”, Urban Studies, Vol. 44,
No.3, 501-524.
Gunder, Michael (2014) “Fantasy in Planning Organisations and their Agency: The Promise
of Being at Home in the World”, Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 32, No.1, 1-15.
Gunter, Asley (2013) “Creating co-sovereigns through the provision of low cost housing: The
case of Johannesburg, South Africa”, Habitat International, Vol. 39, 278-283.
Guyadeen, Dave and Seasons, Mark (2016) "Evaluation theory and practice: Comparing
program evaluation and evaluation in planning", Journal of Planning Education and Research
38, no. 1, 98-110.
Haarhoff, Errol, Beattie, Lee, Dixon, Jenny, Dupuis, Ann, Lysnar, Penelope, and Murphy,
Laurence (2012) Future Intensive: Insights for Auckland's Housing. Transforming Cities, The
University of Auckland.
Imran, Muhammad and Pearce, Jane (2015) “Auckland’s first spatial plan: Ambitious
aspirations or furthering the status quo?”, Cities, Vol. 45, 18-28.
Janssen-Jansen, Leonie (2013) “Delivering Urban Intensification Outcomes in a Context of
Discontinuous Growth: Experiences from the Netherlands”, Built Environment, Vol. 39, No. 4,
422-437.
Laurian, Lucie, Day, Maxine, Backhurst, Michael, Berke, Philip, Ericksen, Neil, Crawford,
Jan, Dixon, Jenny and Chapman, Sarah (2004a) “What drives plan implementation? Plans,
planning agencies and developers”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
Vol. 47, No. 4, 555-577.
Laurian, Lucie, Day, Maxine, Berke, Philip, Ericksen, Neil, Backhurst, Michale, Crawford,
Jan, and Dixon, Jenny (2004b) “Evaluating plan implementation: A conformance-based
methodology”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 70, No. 4, 471-480.
Liu, Wen Haarhoff, Errol, Beattie, Lee and Tang, Shaoyao (2018) “Plan making in delivering
housing intensification: Recent experience in Auckland, New Zealand”, 2018 Joint APNHR
and AHRC Conference: Gold Coast, Australia, 6th- 8th June, 2018.
Ministry for the Environment (2018) Introduction to the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA), Retrieved from: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma
Neuman, Michael (2005) “The compact city fallacy”, Journal of planning education and
research Vol. 25, No.1,11-26.
Oliveira, Victor and Pinho, Paulo (2009) “Evaluating Plans, Processes and Results”, Planning
Theory & Practice, Vol. 10, No. 1, 35-63.
Oliveira, Victor and Pinho, Paulo (2011) “Bridging the gap between planning evaluation and
programme evaluation: The contribution of the PPR methodology”, Evaluation, Vol.17, No. 3,
293-307.
10LIU et al., Plan making in delivering intensification in Auckland 54th ISOCARP
Congress 2018
Rowe, James (2012) “Auckland’s Urban Containment Dilemma: The Case for Green Belts”,
Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, 77-91.
Royal Commission on Auckland Governance (2009) “Royal Commission on Auckland
Governance Report (Volume 1)”, Available at: http://www.mahurangi.org.nz/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/Royal-Commission-on-Auckland-Governance-Report.pdf.
Ruming, Kristian (2010) “Developer typologies in urban renewal in Sydney: recognising the
role of informal associations between developers and local government”, Urban policy and
research, Vol. 28, No. 1, 65-83.
Ruming, Kristian (2014) “Urban consolidation, strategic planning and community opposition
in Sydney, Australia: Unpacking policy knowledge and public perceptions”, Land Use Policy,
Vol. 39, 254-265.
Salmon, Peter, Bazley, Dame and Shand, David (2009) Royal commission on Auckland
governance report, Auckland: Royal Commission.
Searle, Glen and Filion, Pierre (2011) “Planning Context and Urban Intensification Outcomes
Sydney versus Toronto”, Urban Studies, Vol. 48, No. 7, 1419-1438.
Tian, Li and Shen, Tiyan (2011) “Evaluation of plan implementation in the transitional China:
A case of Guangzhou city master plan”, Cities, Vol. 28, No. 1, 11-27.
Waldner, Leora (2009) “Into the black hole: Do local governments implement their spatial
policies?”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, 818-827.
11You can also read
