Skip to main content.

10 Urban growth findings

The following cases were reviewed that included references to the subject of urban growth:

  • Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council (C169/02)

  • Canterbury Regional Council v Selwyn District Council [1997] NZRMA 25

  • Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council [2002] NZRMA 208

  • Landco Mt Wellington v Auckland City Council (A35/07)

  • Mitchell v Waitakere City Council (A21/00)

  • North Shore City Council v Auckland Regional Council [1997] NZRMA 59

  • Wilbow Corporation (NZ) Ltd v North Shore City Council (A152/01).

Some cases also referenced other urban subjects and, accordingly, may or may not be referred to under those subjects. Each case is summarised in Appendix 1.

Because urban growth commonly occurs on the rural periphery of urban areas it is a subject that is frequently interrelated with other typically non-urban topics, such as the value of productive land and landscape values.

Urban growth can be achieved (in terms of addressing population increases or the changing household needs of an urban area) by extending onto ‘greenfields’ land, or through increasing the density within an existing urban area (refer section 7, Density findings).

10.1 Regional direction

The level of regional input into planning for urban growth varies, with some regions being highly involved and others not. The Court has been critical in the past of the lack of regional direction in managing urban growth (Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council). Both the Auckland and Christchurch regional councils have been actively involved in addressing urban growth issues (at least as observed at the level of the Court), possibly more so than other regional councils.

10.2 District versus region

Several of the cases reviewed were between regional and district councils. An issue that emerged from these cases was the desire, at a regional level, for regional planning matters to be resolved prior to new zoning provisions being introduced at a district level. In the case of North Shore City Council v Auckland Regional Council, the Court observed that planning is never complete, and proposals will often deserve determination ahead of planning that is still evolving.

Another issue involved ‘movement’ (see also section 8, Movement findings), where regional level concerns about increased vehicle trip generation, effects on air quality and infrastructure costs have the potential to impinge on local growth planning decisions by district councils (Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council). It was beyond the scope of this review to suggest how these matters should be addressed. Ideally, there would be recognition and provision at a strategic level for both regional and district planning (eg, strategic-growth type plans or development plans) to address the implications of urban growth given the scale at which it occurs.

10.3 Urban containment

Several cases reflected attempts to limit urban growth (at least for a certain planning period), particularly to areas within reach of employment centres, schools and other amenities. In the case of Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council several different blocks of land were considered by the Court under a proposed re-zoning and it made various findings as to the appropriateness of the blocks, depending on their relationship to the existing urban area.

For one area, the Court found the proposed re-zoning was inconsistent with the current urban containment and consolidation policy. It would have resulted in the inefficient movement of people to the existing urban area; the Court considered the related zone provisions would not allow the increased density being sought. For another area, the Court allowed the re-zoning, and in a third, it saw the need for a fresh approach and invited the landowner to make a further application supported by a detailed management tool. In response, the landowner developed a structure plan in conjunction with the council and Transit New Zealand, and the Court subsequently approved re-zoning with the structure plan in place.

Another case that supported urban containment was North Shore City Council v Auckland Regional Council, in which the Court found that limits to a new urban area needed to be drawn to take into account the need to protect landscape and ecological values.

10.4 Structure plans

The use of comprehensive development or structure plans is becoming commonplace and this was reflected in several of the cases considered (Mitchell v Waitakere City Council, Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council and Landco Mt Wellington v Auckland City Council). When included in a district plan, such plans provide a layer of detail to guide the future development of an area, and are usually applied in tandem with a proposed re-zoning of the area for future growth. These techniques appear to be recognised by the Court as appropriate tools for managing the form of future development in an area, taking into account such factors as: the existing qualities or values of the growth area; the preferred location of residential and commercial activities and their associated densities; and the connections and open space corridors needed to provide efficient movement between blocks held in different ownership.

10.5 Productive land

There appear to be few cases that reflect on the effects of urban growth on the productive value of rural land proposed to be urbanised. One such case is Canterbury Regional Council v Selwyn District Council, in which the Court acknowledged that a rural site proposed for urban expansion already had low productive value because of reverse sensitivity effects from its existing residential urban neighbours.

10.6 Landscape values

In a case where a greenfield area with landscape values and ecological sensitivities was proposed for urban growth, the Court considered the growth could be differentiated (and declined) in the area when compared with growth proposals (in the same case) in another greenfield area that had landscape values of less importance and less sensitive ecology (North Shore City Council v Auckland Regional Council).

10.7 Reality check

The Court has recognised that, despite the intentions of councils to apply structure plans and new zoning to achieve new growth nodes as part of their provisions for planned urban growth, the existing environment also needs to be taken in account. Where an area of land is already being lawfully developed by its owner in ways that differ from the broad intentions of a council, it may be unrealistic to pursue an alternative layout as identified in the structure plan for that area. In Wilbow Corporation (NZ) Ltd v North Shore City Council, the Council was encouraged to direct high-density growth to areas where alternative forms of development were not already occurring.

 

[ |