Skip to main content.

3 Levels of support for developing
an NPS

About 75 per cent of submitters conditionally supported the development of an NPS on urban design. The many and varied reasons are summarised below. This also includes several submitters who questioned whether an NPS would add value to the existing central government guidance on urban design.

3.1 Reasons for supporting an NPS

A small number of submitters considered an NPS would be crucial as a means to achieving high-quality, more sustainable urban areas. Many saw an NPS as essential in improving the design and quality of living environments for all:

High quality urban design is of national importance. Over 87 percent of New Zealanders live in urban areas and the quality of the design is critical to their well-being ... High quality urban environments can facilitate the economic prosperity of a city and region and are a component of creating national and international competitive advantage. (92)2

A few submitters stated an NPS on urban design would be integral to achieving the Government’s broad goals of sustainability, economic transformation and improved public health:

Many different aspects of sustainability come together in urban design. In many instances urban design provides the local responses to national and international sustainability issues, such as energy use and climate change. (60)

…an NPS will confirm the significant influence urban design has in promoting the purpose of the RMA. It will also assist in achieving the New Zealand Transport Strategy’s objectives and targets. (112)

The NPS could play a particularly significant role in giving effect to the New Zealand Energy Strategy’s stated commitments to develop resilient and low carbon transport; use energy more efficiently; support low emissions power; and foster greater affordability and wellbeing. (21)

Good urban design supports health and wellbeing … for instance the promotion of active transport such as walking and cycling can significantly contribute to key government health strategies such as in Healthy Eating Healthy Action… (114)

Submission 114 also set out an extensive list of how good urban design can support health and wellbeing, including providing opportunities for physical activity, improving social connection and personal safety.

Many submitters agreed that one of the main benefits of developing an NPS would be to increase consistency and reduce duplication of effort across local government.

An NPS would provide consistency of urban design principles at a high level. (102)

An NPS that sets out and explains those [urban design] principles in some detail would serve a useful purpose in generating greater consensus across the industry with both developers and regulatory authorities. (56)

[…an NPS could] provide a stronger focus on design; the assurance that urban design is considered at the earliest stage of a development process and high quality design must be delivered as a result; and consistency throughout the country in approach and delivery of urban design through statutory and non statutory mechanisms, processes and initiatives. (88)

Many submitters saw the benefit of an NPS as helping to achieve a more integrated approach to dealing with urban issues. (This is discussed in further detail in section 5.5.) For example, submitter 17 stated:

An NPS on urban design provides a welcome opportunity to reframe/reinterpret/clarify that … planning to achieve sustainable communities is a complex and challenging business, where success depends on having a broad range of mutually reinforcing policies, including those developed under local government, resource management, transport and building legislation – so that policy integration across these statutes is crucial.

Many submitters stated a key benefit of an NPS would be to legitimise urban design as a valid matter for consideration under the RMA. (This is discussed in further detail in section 5.2). For example, submitter 111 stated:

…central government needs to develop an NPS on urban design to progress the legislative support for urban design. Without a clear implementation framework the principles of urban design will continue to be dependent on those councils and developers that have a commitment to urban design.

An NPS will provide direct support to design related plan changes … it provides the opportunity for urban design principles and practices to be given greater weight in resource consent processes. (107)

Submitter 25’s views were indicative of many respondents who have supported work on the Urban Design Protocol and who consider an NPS as a useful extension of this work. (This is discussed in further detail in section 9.1.)

An NPS on urban design is critical as it cements the gains made by the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol and mandates urban design within the RMA framework.

Submitter 66 focused on the benefits of an NPS from a Māori policy perspective. They considered that an NPS would provide:

…a vehicle to introduce the broader paradigm of cultural landscapes into national policy reflecting Maori issues, needs and aspirations, as articulated in the Te Aranga Maori Cultural Landscapes Strategy.

Several submitters thought an NPS would be most useful as part of a package of initiatives which supported better urban design in New Zealand. (These are discussed in further detail in section 9.) For example, submitter 34 stated:

…even though an NPS under the RMA could be an appropriate method to achieve excellence in urban design, it is not the only one available and it should not be used alone. Other implementation methods … should be used at the same time.

3.2 Support for a broader scope

Many submitters supported an NPS which had a broader scope than that suggested by the definition of urban design as included in the background paper:

If an NPS is prepared it should have a wider coverage than simply urban design matters; it should include all key matters relating to building sustainable urban communities, including a consideration of urban form and design. We would suggest that you consider an NPS on urban sustainability. (38)

What is needed is an NPS on sustainable urban development, which will of course inevitably involve urban design processes. (58)

…in the absence of an NPS on urban planning, an NPS on urban design would need to address many issues generally held to be core planning issues. (105)

A number of submitters were supportive of the broad approach to tackling issues in urban areas being explored by the Department of Internal Affairs in the discussion document Building Sustainable Urban Communities. For example, submitter 36 stated:

It is essential for the NPS process to be connected practically and strategically with the Building Sustainable Urban Communities programme under way under the direction of the Department of Internal Affairs. Integration of these two initiatives may require a two phase process: – first, a comprehensive statement of government policy on urban design and planning that deals with substantive issues, irrespective of the statutory purpose of the RMA, – second, an NPS on urban design under the RMA that deals with those aspects of the wider strategy that fall within the more narrowly defined purpose of that Act.

…the DIA approach is more likely to lead to better policy, remove barriers to implementation, and create better tools for implementation of the Urban Design Protocol at a local level than the current MfE approach. (96)

3.3 Cautions from those supporting an NPS

Despite this high level of support for an NPS, many submitters also expressed caution about its development. A number questioned if an NPS would add value to existing urban design resources. A few also raised the issue of central government resourcing to assist with its implementation and its priority relative to other NPSs.

There are similarities between these concerns and the reasons submitters gave for not supporting an NPS. (These reasons are discussed further in section 3.4.) The key difference is they are largely premised on a position of general support for an NPS, but with a view to making sure it is effective and its scope is clearly defined.

A few submitters were also concerned about an NPS being pitched at a very general level:

…there are a number of significant disadvantages to a general urban design NPS. It would add little to the Urban Design Protocol but take significant resources, avoid focussing on key issues confronting urban areas that require urgent support, and be unlikely to meet the section 32 tests. (52)

Urban design is a very broad concept indeed, meaning there is a danger that if the scope is not clearly defined, and distinctive, the national policy statement could easily become ‘all things to all people’, challenging and constraining no one, and thus liable to be fully agreed with in theory and effectively ignored in practice. (87)

Care should also be taken to ensure that the NPS is not seen as a panacea to all. While interrelated, past discussion on the NPS has included regional infrastructure, vehicle emissions, sustainable transport, urban growth, resource management and planning matters. We believe that matters such as these are better addressed through other means but with reference to the NPS. (88)

Others were concerned about an NPS being too prescriptive:

If urban design becomes excessively descriptive and is included in detail in the RMA then in all likelihood this will open up a whole new field of activity for the legal profession to argue and to decide on what is good urban design. (118)

A few submitters questioned if an NPS was the right tool to really improve urban design outcomes:

…in answer to the question whether good urban design can be legislated for our response is – yes – for some limited elements. This highlights the limited additional value an NPS might have on urban design. It also needs to be recognised that the potentially more influential role of promoting good urban design is the ongoing promotion of best practice. (100)

…the key question is what would an NPS add and would it assist with the implementation of quality urban design? (104)

…further analysis is required to confirm whether or not a national policy statement is the most appropriate way in which to provide guidance on urban design, identify urban design as a matter of national significance, and legitimise urban design under the RMA. (39)

Others questioned exactly what it was that an NPS on urban design would be trying to do:

Any NPS will also have to be very clear about what it is trying to achieve. (65)

If the aim of the Ministry is just to mandate urban design within the RMA then an NPS focussing on urban design could achieve this. If the intention is to strengthen the RMA to allow for better urban development outcomes in the long term and/or consideration of social, cultural and economic effects, then some further analysis of alternative options including amendments to the RMA need to be carefully considered … If not thought through properly, an NPS could end up making very little difference… (89)

Submitter 89 also noted concerns about the policy process associated with developing an NPS:

…we note that generally good policy development requires the identification of specific problems or issues before deciding which mechanism would be the best tool to solve these identified issues or problems. With the NPS process we see the policy tool decided before the aims, objectives and policy problems are even decided. This process essentially locks us all into an outcome – in this case an NPS before any robust debate has even occurred as to whether an NPS is the best choice. We look forward to seeing some robust upfront problem definition, policy analysis and cost/benefit analysis.

A small number of submitters wanted to ensure that an NPS could be distinguished from the Urban Design Protocol:

…the NPS must be distinguishable from existing guidance on urban design, including the Urban Design Protocol, and must add to that existing body of material. If the NPS were too similar to the Urban Design Protocol, the value of the Protocol would be significantly diminished. (5)

Given this [the Ministry’s limited resources], and also given the Act’s section 32 requirements, I consider that an NPS could only be justified if it provides clear guidance on urban design and urban design outcomes which is not currently available, which has the potential to significantly clarify key urban design issues impacting on urban outcomes across many of New Zealand’s towns and cities, and to significantly improve urban design outcomes in them. An NPS which took as its focus the current non-statutory Urban Design Protocol, without a strong focus on key issues is to my mind in the ‘nice to do but not urgent’ category. (44)

Other submitters also mentioned the issue of resourcing:

We would prefer that MfE’s urban design resources remain focussed on further developing the reach and influence of the Protocol, sharing best practice and providing capacity building resources. We are aware there is now a small staff resource working on the Protocol within MfE, and would be concerned if their time and energies were diverted to the NPS, at the expense of the Protocol. (108)

We do not think that the government should produce a national policy document that requires detailed annual reporting to a government minister and the employment of staff to manage and monitor another process. (118)

3.4 Reasons for not supporting an NPS

About a quarter of submitters were either neutral or did not support the development of an NPS on urban design. The reasons given were wide ranging and included:

  • a high-level policy tool would not add value to existing guidance

  • there are other more effective tools available

  • the Urban Design Protocol provides all the guidance necessary

  • the concept of urban design is too broad for an NPS

  • urban design initiatives are best developed at the local level

  • a NPS would be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach

  • an integrated approach to urban design is necessary but not possible under the limitations of the RMA

  • consultation on the NPS has not been wide enough or allowed enough time for feedback

  • impact on housing affordability

  • compliance costs

  • an NPS would legitimise urban growth strategies such as Smart Growth

  • other priorities for national guidance.

Submitter 108 summed up the concerns of many submitters:

If an NPS is the answer, then quite what is the question?

Several submitters were concerned a high-level policy tool would not add value:

A high level policy along the lines of any of the other policy statements to date would not add anything meaningful to planning or resource consent processes. It would simply add to the increasing range of regulatory instruments that must be analysed every time there is an application or plan change… (96)

Many mentioned other tools which would be more effective:

…in many instances good urban design is more likely to evolve from collaboration between councils, developers, and urban designers than as the result of regulation via an NPS. (15)

More effective than a national policy statement would be tools under the Local Government Act… (20)

…partnerships addressing urban community outcomes, reserves planning, town and city centre strategies, Mainstreet programmes, infrastructure management plans, community driven social engagement programmes and projects will, collectively, do more for better urban outcomes than a limited tool drawn at a very high level (or detailed prescriptive) way. (108)

An amendment to Part II of the Act, including the purpose of the Act and the matters of national importance, to broaden its purpose and provide for urban design may be more powerful and effective. (74)

Specifically, the Urban Design Protocol was seen as an existing resource that provided all the necessary national guidance:

…the Ministry’s Urban Design Protocol provides a satisfactory focal point for urban design decision-making… (15)

The development of a urban design NPS is not necessary or appropriate at this stage, particularly given the presence of the Urban Design Protocol. (82)

[We are] committed to good urban design as a signatory to the Urban Design Protocol, and this is considered a sufficient guideline to influence and inform urban design at the local level. (35)

…questions whether the NPS will add value to the Urban Design Protocol … It seems quite pointless to initiate the NPS process without undertaking an evaluation of the implementation of the current Urban Design Protocol. (96)

Some submitters stated that because urban design was a broad concept it was too difficult to deal with through an NPS. For example, submitter 9 stated:

I currently have serious concerns about installing these principles in a national policy statement. Even though there are many well accepted principles, urban design is a highly subjective matter, with few clear boundaries as to what is, and what is not, ‘urban design.

Many submitters stated that the local level was where it was most appropriate to deal with urban design issues.

Urban design is highly context specific. It is therefore important for urban design initiatives to be developed at the local level as appropriate, rather than being driven by central government national directives. (82)

A national policy statement is unlikely to address local issues in an effective way. The design of our urban areas is best addressed locally where ‘town specific’ matters can be debated … It is not realistic to set national objectives and policies that would be usefully implemented at a local level. (20)

NZ has a diverse range of landscapes and cityscapes … AN NPS cannot adequately cope with this diversity. (53)

…does not support the development of the national policy statement for a range of reasons including the … influence of central government policy on local authorities who have the ability now to promote urban design through their district plans, taking account of local conditions that influence design outcomes. (35)

Submitter 119 considered an NPS could result in a duplication of effort, particularly in Auckland where there were processes in place to ensure integration of land use and transport planning through the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 (LGAAA):

…[if a prescriptive approach is taken by the NPS] this has the potential to duplicate the LGAAA plan change process, which required local authorities in the Auckland region to amend planning documents to reflect the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy’s objectives of land use and transport planning integration.

A few submitters considered that an NPS would effectively enforce a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, not allowing for local and context-specific variation:

...it seems to be a big metropolitan or city planning tool poorly focussed on the needs of all urban areas. (108)

…the NPS may provide a ‘one size fits all’ approach that fails to meet the needs of our diverse communities. (96)

…national policy statements are a heavy handed planning device, which leads to ‘one size fits all’ outcomes that fetter local decision making and community outcomes. (55)

Submitter 42 was concerned that an NPS would result in too much regulation:

Many of the councils around New Zealand will seize the opportunity to introduce far reaching rules using any national policy statement as justification … It is this sort of micro management that holds fears for us.

The limitation of trying to develop an integrated NPS under the RMA was discussed by submitter 18:

…in order for an NPS to achieve well-designed urban places and spaces, it would need to be integrative in its approach. It would have to cut across the RMA, Local Government, Land Transport Management and the Building Act. We do not believe that an NPS could adequately achieve this.

A small number of submitters had concerns about the consultation process:

How representative is the submission process? If the information received is strongly skewed, is that a good basis for decisions about an NPS? (53)

Our concern is that the consultation has centred largely with the regulators and not the practitioners [developers]. (42)

National policy statements go largely unnoticed and slip through the participation net and hence participation is dominated by well-organised lobbyists and pressure groups. (27)

…local authorities have been given very little time to consider the option of creating an NPS on urban design owing to the limited consultation period. (35)

…it does not state the motivation for the NPS on urban design … [We are] concerned that MfE may have misinterpreted feedback from a prior consultation process; the background paper only lists parties to the consultation and not the actual feedback received by the government … As such we cannot identify that there actually is a clear mandate to establish an NPS on urban design among stakeholders. (96)

A few submitters mentioned that an NPS would impact on housing affordability and growth of cities:

[The submitter] is concerned about and does not support the development of the national policy statement on urban design for a range of reasons including … housing affordability… (35)

…by introducing many specific rules or guidelines which councils hold as sacred the costs of developing even a single dwelling on a standalone section can increase. (42)

Concentration on the management and regulation of growth rather than enablement of growth makes the focus of the statement restrictive rather than conducive for growth. (82)

Other submitters mentioned compliance costs as a reason not to develop an NPS. (This issue is discussed in further detail in section 8.2.)

The process of developing a national policy statement would be a long, costly and difficult process. (74)

[The submitter] is concerned about and does not support the development of the national policy statement on urban design for a range of reasons including … compliance costs… (35)

A small number of submitters were concerned that an NPS would simply be another vehicle to promote the concepts of Smart Growth. For example, submitter 27 stated:

…indicates that the real intention (of at least some of those previously consulted) is to legitimise the disastrous theory of Smart Growth by using a policy statement to direct and enforce growth management strategies, and other policies and rules, intended to direct and control the use of land in order to change and modify New Zealanders’ behaviour and preferences.

A few submitters thought an NPS on urban design should be a lower government priority than other issues. For example, submitter 18 stated:

Our primary issue is whether a national policy statement on urban design should be a priority. We believe there are other priorities that would benefit from a national policy statement, such as dealing with indigenous biodiversity and clarifying the use of ‘significant’ for identifying natural and cultural heritage.

We wonder what is driving the need for an NPS on urban design among the many other priorities facing our government. (96)

 

2  The numbers included in brackets relate to specific submitters as listed in Appendix B of this report (refer page 47).

[ |