[21 Dec 09]

NZ Standard 4404 on Land Development and Subdivision has been reviewed and is out for public comment until 5 February 2010

Greg McBride of Harrison Grierson is UDF’s representative on the Review Committee.

In general the amendments are to include technical improvements and legislative updates, but in particular for the UDF, the amendments are anticipated to include updating the Standard in terms of Urban Design principles.

It is anticipated that a draft  reviewed Standard will be available for comment by November 2009, with finalisation intended for May 2010.

The following summary of the review process has been prepared to help prime input into the forthcoming consultation on the reviewed standard.

If you have any thoughts about urban design input, please forwarded them directly to g.mcbride@harrisongrierson.com.

UDF will prepare a formal submission on the reviewed standard once it is out for comment. 

See Standards NZ website for more details about the review process.
See the attached document for more details about UDF’s input into the review process.

Better urban outcomes through better legislation?

New Zealand law as it is applied to the built environment is the source of much frustration.  But will changes to the RMA as currently being considered by the Government actually improve urban outcomes?

At the UDF event on 28 August 2009, Changing Times, Changing Places, five developers outlined their view of the importance of good urban outcomes, and what stood in the way of achieving those.  They all expressed a desire to achieve better design outcomes. 

here for Nikki Kaye MP for Auckland Central speech "Designing Auckland for the future"  to UDF Members (note the photos below are not of Nikki Kaye)

   

The predominant point that I took from what they had to say was about the disconnect between Council policy statements on desired urban environments and what then happens during the Resource Consent process.  As one of them said, “we are the only champion of our project; we have to do all the work.  Even though it meets all the policy objectives, it’s entirely up to us to convince everyone that this is a good idea.”

The shared vision of the future expressed in policy documents seems to be frequently ignored at the Resource Consent processing level, which is rule-driven.

I’m working with Graeme McIndoe on an Institute of Architects view of what should happen to the Resource Management Act.  The Government believes change is necessary, probably more from the viewpoint of economic efficiency than quality of urban design outcomes.  The process now getting underway, popularly known as RMA Phase 2, is a crunch-point in the debate.

Clearly the Urban Design Panels established by many Councils can take on a role of supporting a good development proposal, but we believe this needs an extra push from central government.  We will propose to Government that a small group is set up to coordinate urban development issues across the country, with tasks such as:

• Research into urban design from around the world, what works and what does not?
• Education of Council staff, to enable a better discussion on urban design at the pre-lodgement stage.
• Preparation of outline District Plans, incorporating urban design measures, to avoid the need for each individual Council to ‘re-invent the wheel’, and to get some consistency of District Plans around the country.
• Establishment of a national Design Review Panel which can look a projects of regional significance and help champion them.
• Advice to Councils on setting up local Urban Design Panels, and increasing their powers of approval

There are groups achieving these goals in other countries.  CABE in the UK is an obvious model, but Architecture and Design Scotland www.ads.org.uk is something of a similar scale to the group we have in mind, and serves a similar-sized population.

Any comments on this or related topics is welcome.

Graeme Scott
Graeme.Scott@ascarchitects.co.nz