Replacement to the Replacement Plan Change 78?
The replacement plan change for Plan Change 78 is better. I support the ability to downzone in areas of hazard and I strongly support the requirement to provide deep soil and trees and 50% front yard landscaping rules.
However, the replacement plan (as did the original) promotes low-rise sausage flats and hard to deliver towers with the risk of ending up with very little usable outdoor space.
I don’t know of many people willing to let their under-7s go to a park alone and research in the city centre indicates most kids are not taken to their local park in winter at all. Accessible usable outdoor space makes a huge difference to quality of life, particularly for families with pre-schoolers.
Perimeter blocks are much better than sausage flats with regard optimising capacity, providing outdoor space, provision of landscaping, trees, birdsong, managing privacy, sunlight, overlooking etc. Now, I know you can get a consent to remove the side yard but if we can make it easy to do good urban design that might supercharge good outcomes.
An alternative height to boundary standard for mixed housing urban zones might be the answer. And Christchurch has shown the way.
The Christchurch Plan enables perimeter blocks by making an exception to height in relation to boundary standards for Local Centre Intensification Areas - 14A.5.2.6 (b.5). The variation was accepted by Chris Bishop. It is similar to the alternative MDRS standards promoted by the coalition for more homes. The rule is cut and paste below, see clause b.5:
https://districtplan.ccc.govt.nz/?docId=eqvroDD7iXQ%3d
In our suburban mixed housing urban areas, I would recommend permitting removal of side yards, but including a front yard setback (for driveway safety/ trees over the footpath) that is generally commensurate with other houses (to which the 50% landscaping rules apply). 40-50% landscaping across the site would apply.
We might also go higher than 12m to 13-15 which would allow four storeys (Vinegar Lane on Crummer Road has a max height of 15m). I understand a lift is not required in a four-storey house. If there were apartments, the top two floors might be a duplex that would also remove the need for a lift. Four storeys still feels human scale and livable.
There are local examples: townhouses in Freeman’s Bay (Wellington/Napier), and Crummer Road.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wellington+Street,+Auckland/@-36.8514146,174.7504596,18z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x6d0d47ecd467f0cb:0x76c39378d9584989!8m2!3d-36.8524062!4d174.7523559!16s%2Fg%2F1ty74fwf?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDgxOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D and as apartments in Market Place.
This approach to Mixed Housing Urban Zones, at least in the isthmus, would increase capacity and deliver better outcomes. We are not nervous of four-storey buildings, but we are concerned about the loss of outdoor space for biodiversity and the chance for families to get outside, sit in the sun, have a BBQ and play.