Skip to main content.

Executive summary

In August 2008, the Ministry for the Environment sought views on the possible scope of a national policy statement (NPS) on urban design under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). A total of 120 submissions was received. Mixed responses were received from some groups of submitters, such as territorial authorities, but overall there was conditional support for the development of an NPS on urban design.

Reasons for supporting an NPS: Submitters considered an NPS would be crucial to achieving high-quality, more sustainable urban areas. Submitters stated an NPS would be integral to achieving broad goals of sustainability, economic transformation and improved public health. Submitters agreed that the main advantage of developing an NPS would be to increase consistency and reduce duplication of effort across local authorities. They further considered an NPS would foster a more integrated approach to dealing with urban issues. Submitters also stated a key benefit of an NPS would be to legitimise urban design as a valid matter for consideration under the RMA.

Despite this high level of support for an NPS, many submitters also expressed a range of cautions. A small number questioned if an NPS would add value to the existing resources on urban design. A few also raised the issue of central government resourcing and prioritisation across other NPSs.

Broader scope: Many submitters supported an NPS which had a broad scope. Some submitters were supportive of the kind of approach to tackling issues in urban areas being taken by the Department of Internal Affairs.

Reasons for not supporting an NPS: Reasons included that a high-level policy tool would not add value to existing guidance, and there were other more effective tools available than an NPS. Specifically, these submitters thought the Urban Design Protocol provided sufficient guidance. Several submitters stated urban design was too broad a concept for an NPS and could result in a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. They further considered urban design initiatives would be best developed at the local level. A few supported an integrated approach to urban design, but thought it was not possible given the limitations of the RMA. A small number were concerned that consultation on the NPS had neither been wide enough nor allowed sufficient time for feedback. Others mentioned the impact on housing affordability and compliance costs as reasons not to develop an NPS.

Qualities of an NPS: Most submitters would prefer to see an NPS that was high level, visionary and struck a balance between being not too prescriptive and providing a useful level of direction. Most thought a useful structure would be to set out high-level principles, objectives and policies, but not prescribe the details of how these should be achieved at the local level.

What should be in an NPS: Many submitters suggested an NPS should include a specific mandate for urban design under the RMA. A few stated an NPS needed to address growth management issues, while others thought an NPS could usefully deal with a wide range of issues that traditionally might be thought of as ‘urban planning’. A small number of submitters suggested an NPS should focus on issues of common concern nationally, because these were matters of importance which might otherwise not be included in a local perspective on
urban design.

Many submitters stated an NPS should address integration – between statutory and non-statutory urban design initiatives, and between the RMA and other relevant statutes and government policies which address aspects of urban design. Others thought an NPS should address integrating land use and transportation planning, particularly promoting more sustainable forms of transport.

Further issues suggested for inclusion in an NPS were: infrastructure, liveability, quality of place, quality of public spaces, Māori values, heritage, landscape, biodiversity, housing, retail location, mixed use, natural hazards, access to open space, protection of soils, rural-residential development, safe environments, accessible neighbourhoods, physical health, environmental issues, solar access and protection of the night-time environment.

What should not be in an NPS: Many submitters identified issues they considered an NPS should not address. These included global or big-picture issues of national priority, growth management, urban planning and detailed design.

Scale: Most submitters thought an NPS should cover all spatial scales, from regions to metropolitan areas to cities and towns to neighbourhoods to individual spaces and buildings. A few submitters did not support an NPS which applied at all spatial scales and suggested several alternatives.

Implementation: Many submitters raised concerns about how an NPS would be implemented. Submitters felt an NPS would pose significant resourcing issues for local authorities, particularly small councils. Submitters mentioned the need to develop and maintain knowledgeable people in the urban design field, particularly to assist local authorities.

Other initiatives: Submitters thought an NPS would be most useful as part of a package of initiatives which supported better urban design in New Zealand. Submitters suggested initiatives beyond an NPS which could be applied either instead of, or as well as, an NPS. There was a high degree of support for the existing Urban Design Protocol resources. Other initiatives suggested were: amendments to Part 2 of the RMA, and the use of national environmental standards, sharing best practice case studies on urban design, promoting the use of particular urban design tools, encouraging urban design review and investigating urban development agencies.

 

[ |