Appendix 2: Summary of responses from local authorities not operating an external urban design assessment panel
| Local authority | NZ Urban Design Protocol signatory? | Does the district plan (DP) contain urban design (UD) objectives, policies or rules? | Who does any urban design (UD) assessment? | Has a panel ever been considered? | Reasons for not establishing a panel | Other comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashburton District Council | No | No, but DP under review and UD will be included in new plan | External consultants | No | ||
| Carterton District Council | Yes | External consultants | ||||
| Clutha District Council | No | Some, mainly relating to subdivision | Planning consultant, council roading and infrastructure staff | No | Expert input would be sought if there were major UD issues | |
| Dunedin City Council | Yes | No. Heritage and townscape included, but only related to amenity. Strong desire to include more UD objectives and policies | Council Urban Designer | Yes – one will probably be set up in the next financial year. Included in Protocol Action Plan. | Few urban design staff, other matters with higher priority than setting up panel. Has been more cost-effective to use in-house advice so far. | |
| Far North District Council | No | No | No | |||
| Franklin District Council | Yes | Not in operative DP, but UD included in recent plan changes. Also Urban Residential Design Guide which is not part of DP. | No | Lack of relevant/supporting objectives and policies | ||
| Gisborne District Council | No | Inner Commercial guidelines, dated. No specific UD policies, but there are general character and amenity policies | Principal Planner – Urban Design | No, but UD Action Plan signals one | ||
| Grey District Council | No | No, but DP under review and UD will be included in new plan | No specific assessment done | Yes | Idea not progressed due to DP not accommodating this type of assessment | |
| Hauraki District Council | No | No, but DP under review and UD will be included in new plan | Consents Engineer and Planning staff | No | Small district, generally low level development | Council has design guidelines for subdivision elements that will vest in Council eg, street trees, furniture, paving etc |
| Horowhenua District Council | No | Very little, mostly high level | Planning officers | Not formally | No real need. Resources, expertise, timeframes and absence of UD focus in DP | Operation of a developer-led panel for buildings in new subdivisions |
| Hurunui District Council | No | Design and appearance standards in Hanmer only, with objectives and policies | Planning officers, consultant advice if required | No | Current approach has been successful in achieving desired design outcomes | |
| Hutt City Council | Yes | Design Guides in two parts of the city – CBD and Petone | External consultants | Yes | Resistance based on perceived administrative burden and cost | |
| Kaikoura District Council | Yes | Not specifically. Some guidelines have a link to design | Planning staff, consultants if required | Yes | Resources. Existing system thought to work well | |
| Kapiti Coast District Council | Yes | A few | Council landscape advisor and Urban Planner | Not formally | No local expertise, most applications not complicated. | Consultant UD advice used for projects that have raised concern |
| Manawatu District Council | No | Limited, with design guidelines for Feilding CBD | Consultants | No | Pastoral farming focus in district | Questions about UD will be included in issues paper for upcoming review of DP |
| Masterton District Council | Yes | Yes, but also reliance on bulk and location rules for UD outcomes | Planning Liaison Group | No | ||
| Matamata-Piako District Council | Yes | Some, mainly relating to subdivision | Consultant peer review where required | No | Small district, generally low level development | |
| North Shore City Council | Yes | Yes | Planning staff | Yes | Breadth and depth of interest attracted was not sufficient. Lack of specific UD skills available. Lack of funding available | Combined staff/consultant panel for major council-led projects to advise the project design team. Funded through the project |
| Papakura District Council | Yes | Commercial and some residential zones | Consultant review where required | No | Small TA, no real need. No support in DP, cost and timeframe issues | |
| Porirua City Council | Yes | No. First generation plan | In-house clinic once a week, gives quick responses, pulls together different areas across Council | No | Difficulty in getting qualified UD advice. Things working OK at present | Use of external UD consultants if required |
| Rangitikei District Council | No | No | No | Rural district with decreasing population – no call for it | ||
| Rodney District Council | Yes | Yes | Planning staff, consultants if required | Unsure | Small council, cost an issue | |
| South Taranaki District Council | No | No | No | District does not have a significant amount of urban development | ||
| South Waikato District Council | No | Not many at general level. Four main towns have Concept Plans that include UD initiatives. UD will be included in upcoming review of DP | Planning staff | No | Specialised heritage advice also sought when required | |
| South Wairarapa District Council | No | Not stated | Unknown | No | Little undeveloped urban land. Concept plans may be used for specific areas | |
| Stratford District Council | No | No – conscious decision due to low development pressure and desire to not over-regulate | Planning staff | No | In-house assessment can be done at no extra cost to ratepayers. Amenity requirements producing good outcomes | Consultants sometimes used for projects with UD aspects. Reserve Management Plans for amenity on public land |
| Tararua District Council | No | No | No | Area of low growth, focus tends to be on landscape, protected natural areas etc | ||
| Tauranga City Council | Yes | Not directly – phrased more as amenity control First generation plan |
Whoever is relevant. Depends on what aspect of ‘urban design’ is being considered | Yes | Idea was politically unpopular | Plan review underway, at hearings stage. New plan will have more UD than operative plan, but still mostly phrased as amenity, due to lack of political interest in supporting ‘urban design’ |
| Thames-Coromandel District Council | No | Yes | Benefits unclear for small mainly rural local authority | |||
| Timaru District Council | Yes | Various, throughout Plan | Planning staff | No | Nature of development does not warrant it | |
| Upper Hutt City Council | Yes | Proposed Plan Change 18 for comprehensive residential development includes a DG | Would commission external advice | Not formally | Lack of relevant objectives and policies, limited volume of development requiring UD input | |
| Waikato District Council | No | Very little | Consultants, on a case-by-case basis | No | ||
| Waimate District Council | No | No | Planning staff | No | Small council with large rural area. Low level of development, UD not identified as a priority | |
| Waipa District Council | Yes | No, but DP under review and UD will be included in new plan | No | |||
| Waitaki District Council | No | Not UD, but have heritage guidelines. Amenity is considered in general objectives and policies | Planning staff | No | ||
| Wellington City Council | Yes | Yes, also statutory Design Guides | Urban Designers on staff, consultants if required | Yes | In-house assessment capability good, issues with assessment could be addressed by process improvements | |
| Whakatane District Council | No | Design standards for Central Area. Plan under review, better UD principles to be considered | Planning officers, consultant advice if required | No | Not big enough to warrant it, limited direction in DP, cost |
Non-responses
The following local authorities (5 or 7%) indicated that they did not have an urban design panel, or similar (Stage 1 questions) but did not respond to any further (Stage 2) questions:
- Gore District Council
- New Plymouth District Council
- Waimakariri District Council
- Wairoa District Council
- Waitomo District Council.
The following local authorities (20 or 28%) did not respond to any of the survey questions (Stage 1 or Stage 2). A website search did not reveal any evidence of use of an urban design assessment panel:
- Buller District Council
- Central Hawkes Bay District Council
- Central Otago District Council
- Chatham Islands Council
- Invercargill City Council
- Kaipara District Council
- Kawerau District Council
- Mackenzie District Council
- Marlborough District Council
- Napier City Council
- Opotiki District Council
- Otorohanga District Council
- Palmerston North City Council
- Ruapehu District Council
- Selwyn District Council
- Southland District Council
- Taupo District Council
- Wanganui District Council
- Westland District Council
- Whangarei District Council.
