新西兰Unitary Plan 现状


在新西兰


东西太多我就不翻译了,大家英文都应该不错

What council staff are not okay with

1. Deleting ambient air quality standards, because it will remove limits for air pollutants, undermine other objectives, and create uncertainty in the resource consent process.

2. Deleting provisions to protect sites of value to mana whenua, because there is evidence the scheduled sites are significant and face the risk of ongoing degradation.

3. Deleting the Regional Policy Statement value to manage heritage values, because it will create a disconnection between the statement and the mainland district plan.

4. Deleting policies to prevent inappropriate subdivisions, promote indigenous biodiversity and allow only lifestyle blocks, because it could lead to subdivisions in productive land.

5. Deleting policies which encourage land use and transport to be aligned, because land use and transport in synch is key to an efficient transport network.

6. Deleting policies that focus growth within the existing metropolitan area, because focusing intensification in the existing areas will lead to a more compact and efficient city.

7. Changing policies on expanding the urban-rural limit, because it doesn't take into account the need for a compact urban city, and synching up land use and transport.

8. Enabling of commercial activities within centres and near corridors, because corridors isn't defined and the council wants to allow commerce outside centres only where appropriate.

9. Changing subdivisions in the Future Urban Zone from a prohibited activity to a discretionary activity, because it could facilitate the fragmentation of land.

10. Changing landfills in the Future Urban Zone from a non-complying activity to a discretionary activity, because landfills can have long-term adverse irreversible effects over a wide area.

11. Introducing a single set of rules for cleaning biofouling off the hulls of boats, because different rules should apply based on the risk of the biofouling.

12. Counting sea walls as a type of marine or port facility, because seas walls are hard protection structures which are subject to different rules.

13. Deleting framework plans that affect the height and gross floor area controls in Wynyard Quarter, because it will reduce development potential, especially on Jelicoe Street.

14. Deleting the pre-1940 building demolition control in the Queen Street Valley Precinct because it is integral to maintaining its special character, built form, architecture and streetscape.

15. Removing minimum dwelling/apartment sizes in the city centre and business zones, because it isn't addressed by the Building Act and could affect wellbeing and social cohesion.

16. Adding boundary height controls in mixed use zones near general business zones, because it could constrain development.

17. Adding a recessions plane indicator diagram for boundary heights in business zones, because it appears to have been an error.

18. Deleting standards to manage natural hazards at Auckland Port, because it would prevent port activities from taking place around natural hazards.

19. Deleting addition, height and gross floor area threshold standards for new builds, because open space and neighbours need to be considered.

20. Allowing integrated residential developments (retirement villages) as a restricted discretionary activity in a single house zone, because neighbours should be notified.

21. Allowing three or four dwelling buildings in mixed housing suburban and urban zones to be built without a resource consent, because it would lead to low quality design.

22. Deleting minimum dwelling/apartment size standards across the city for the same reasons as 15, because it isn't addressed by the Building Act and could affect wellbeing and social cohesion.

23. Deleting front fence rules and streetscape rules for residential zones, because allowing fence up to 2.5 metres high would result in ugly streetscapes.

24. Allowing an alternative boundary height controls without a resource consent, because the non-alternative controls should apply in those cases.

25. Removing height and alternative boundary height controls for road boundaries, because it would lead to upper floors being set back from the street.

26. Deleting water and wastewater capacity standards, because septic tanks can't be built in serviced urban areas and capacity in multi-unit developments needs to be assessed.

27. Deleting the definition of building coverage, which excluded eaves, because this could discourage or prevent people from building eaves.

28. Including objectives, policies and rules to allow sporadic rural subdivision, because it would undermine productive rural areas and a compact city.

28. Allowing rural divisions for minimal environmental benefit off-setting, because it would allow inappropriate subdivisions for minimal gains.

29. Removing recommended specific site sizes for lifestyle blocks on Caldwels Road in Whitford, because the subdivider agreed to the sizes.

What council staff are okay with

1. Deleting a vehicle emission buffer around childcare facilities, because it could be introduced later through a plan change.

2. Deleting a 500 metre buffer between heavy industry zones and residential areas, because those issues could be addressed through other policies.

3. Deleting the pre-1944 building demolition overlay, which there are other protections being introduced for special character areas.

4. Retaining the special character overlay for Howick business area, because it is historic as one of Auckland's oldest settlements.

5. Removing the Puhoi precinct and creating a Puhoi special character overlay, because it will allow new developments to follow the area's existing character.

6. Adding Hill Park in Manurewa and Pukehana Avenue in Epsom as special character areas, because of proven historic signficance.

7. Removing any reference to 1940 to demolition rules, because it will require demolitions of newer character buildings to be subject to the same criteria.

8. Changing the rural objective of "security of food supply" to "making a signifcant contribution to food supply" because it will have a similar effect.

9. Including the rural objective of landscape and biodiversity values, because it will strengthen the importance of those values in rural areas.

10. Removing protections for prime soils that apply for elite soils, because removing protections of potentially unfertile soils may not be pragmatic.

11. Moving the rural-urban boundary from regional policy to the mainland district plan, because boundary changes on Waiheke Island would still require plan changes or resource consents.

12. Deleting the urban-rural boundary in rural and costal settlements, because other rules will prevent the inappropriate expansion of these settlements.

13. Introducing stricter criteria for removing mangroves, because it will retain mangroves that are important for ecology and safety but still allow other mangroves to be removed.

14. Removing rules for living on houseboats, because they will still need to follow sewage rules, obtain permits and not block public access.

15. Treating any more than minor reclamation at Auckland Port as a discretionary activity, because it will require the effects of that reclamation to be fully assessed.

16. Treating any new wharfs or alterations to existing wharves at Auckland Port as a restricted discretionary activity, because it will allow appropriate matters to be considered.

17. Removing a viewshaft protection from the end of Queens Wharf out to the harbour, because it can be reintroduced through a plan change.

18. Deleting standards for building work and internal design, because they can be reintroduced through a plan change.

18. Deleting design standards and addressing design issues through the resource consent process, because it will be adequate.

19. Deleting framework plans around the Quay Park Precinct because they would be relatively minor.

20. Deleting urban design standards in business zones, because the plan will still try to achieve the same design outcomes.

21. Deleting internal design standards, because they could be introduced later through a plan change.

22. Increasing the height in Newmarket Metropolitan Centre from 32.5 metres to 72.5 metres, because protections of volcanic viewshafts will still apply.

23. Using single house zoning for special character areas, spacious avenues and coastal settings, because it provides for a range of living options in the city.

24. Allowing minor dwellings in single house zones, because they were already allowed in many places and will provide more housing choices.

25. Deleting the density control for sites of less than 1000 metres squared in mixed housing zones, because it will provide greater housing capacity and choice.

26. Deleting development standards for the garages and dwellings fronting streets, because they are usually not an issue for standalone houses.

27. Deleting the retained affordable housing provisions, because allowing more homes to be built is a better way of making sure homes are affordable.

28. Changing subdivisions in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area from prohibited to non-complying, because the area is protected by legislation anyway.

29. Changing the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area from a precinct to an overlay, because the area is protected by legislation anyway.

29. Changing the Waitakere Ranges precincts into a Waitakere Ranges zone and a Waitakere Foothills zone, because limited development in the foothills is okay.

30. Rezoning these areas, because it will still allow subdivision to be controlled around Titirangi and Langholm.

31. Removing restrictions in the Waitakere Ranges which are managed by bylaws or other rules, or are unnecessary, because the area is protected by legislation anyway.

32. Adding these zones to the Regional Plan, because it will change how they are enforced and could be outside the law

资料源:http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news ... lands-unitary-plan/




评论
求翻译后说重点... 谢谢, 看不 懂.

评论
25. Deleting the density control for sites of less than 1000 metres squared in mixed housing zones, because it will provide greater housing capacity and choice.
这个是啥意思???

评论

舊聞 今天大部分都通過了

現在就等19號大會正式公佈決定版本 然後就等上訴了

至於上面那些細節 華人只需要知道那些300 400 的分割規定都不存在就好了 (都說了 大家當初那麼認真幹什麼  記得當時還有不少網友還開貼慢慢研究  討論得不亦樂乎呢)反正在最大的 mixed housing urban /suburban zones  按照相關設計規定建兩個房子是可以的 (然後應該可以按照已經許可的房子來進行分割) 要建第三個房子或者以上就要申請resource consent   如果有房子在/設計了的話才分割那就沒有什麼300 400要求了  只有什麼都沒有的空地分割的情況下才需要 300 400   因為Unitary Plan 已經基本取消這兩個區的密度要求  

其他的還涉及原有現在規劃規定的不同細節 有不少規劃界的行內術語  不是這一行的 大概解釋了大家都不會知道是什麼意思  一般人老實說其實也不用太知道是什麼意思  -  這些規定其實一直都在 就好像之前的District Plans  要是不是要加建 改建 分割  council 告訴你這不行 那不行的話 一般人從來誰會care 呢? 呵呵


评论

the council agrees to delete the density controls for site under 1000m2 in mixed housing zones, which means in those zones, more dwelling could be building per site for sites under 1000m2, please note this does not mean you can subdivide your land more, just that you could build more houses on it

评论

i will see if i can translate some later in the day, maybe just a quick one with google translate for now

评论

yes, that is right, despite density control is gone, you are really still allowed to do two house per site, but just no limits anymore, also minor units would still be applied under the single house zones, sorry cant type too many chinese, i will help more after work :)

评论

So what may stop people from building another house on a 770 sqm section in a mixed house urban zone?

评论

老兄也是planner? 我不用你help啦 呵呵

评论

unfortunately, nothing

评论

lol yeah i am a planner as well, working private though, anyway my system is English and my chinese typing is a bit rusty, hope you dont mind

评论

哈哈 同行握個手 其實新UP 對我們來說某些程度是個威脅 發展規定一切都放寬了 人們還需要申請RC 嗎?呵呵

你是奧大畢業的?現在也越來越多華人做planner 了

评论

yeah, graduated on UoA Bplan, i guess its alright, consultation is always required, and we are professionals after all, it is like you said, lay-person does not need to know the details

评论


评论
764平米 6A区, 分割建2个房子就不需要RC, 1000平米6A区, 建三个或以下的就不需RC, 是这么理解吗?

评论

新政下:不管土地面积是1000平以下还是以上的MIX ZONE,1变2,不需要RC,1变3or4需要RC,当然这些都是水管OK的情况下。还有就是已经批了1变3or4的继续有效。差不多应该是这样吧?DELETING DENSITY CONTROAL是不是说没有强制规定1000平你必须500平各一块,你也可以400+600这样或者其他面积混搭分割,对吧?

评论

如果我有2个房子相互相连。面积超过1300平。是不是理论也只能分4块?再多就需要RC?

评论

一變二是要符合Unitary Plan 相關各種設計規定 不只是水管ok 水管ok是分割申請才要看的 其實不太是UP的內容

沒有密度要求主要意思是不再限死一塊地只能按大小只能有兩間 三間  而是理論上你只要符合UP裡面的設計規定就可以起多少間都可以 但由於UP 有限制每個住宅單位的最低面積/體積 /採光/花園/停車位等要求 所以其實並不是真正無限

评论

6A 區就是將要被取消的啦

评论

你要分地首先就要拿RC   土地分割本身就是RC的一種

另外還要看所屬zoning 沒有密度限制的只局限於市區最普遍的兩個mixed housing (urban/suburban)zones 如果你這個不是 還是有其他限制

如果你的地是mixed housing 理論上你分多少個都可以  但你要顯示給council看到房子如何能符合那些設計上的規定

评论
好囉。以後 Auckland 將會邁向超級城市拔地而起。
建到像世界各大城市般密密麻麻還不錯

评论

我现在谈的都是在ZONING里的地。



评论

yeah, to my understanding, the actual number of the dwelling is still limited, but you could allocate the size of the land differently, and also account for the potential need for easement and RoW

评论

in this case it would be subdivision, not dwellings, you need to determine what sort of title you want

评论

no, there is still subdivision controls on lot sizes, there is just less control in terms of the number of houses you can build on site, in which case each dwelling would be cross-lease or unit titles, it wont be freehold

评论

there is still subdivision controls on lot sizes,

多少呢?

评论
Table E38.8.2.3.1 Minimum net site area for subdivisions involving parent sites
of less than 1 hectare
Zone Minimum net site area for vacant proposed sites
Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment: 1,200m2
Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone: 300m2
Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone: 400m2
Residential - Single House Zone: 600m2
Residential - Large Lot Zone: 4,000m2
Residential - Rural and Coastal Settlement Zone: 2,500m2

评论
注意 樓上的說的是VACANT 一般人分割都連帶房子設計圖紙的  那就不是"vacant"  就不受這個最低面積約束了

Zone Minimum net site area for vacant proposed sites

评论

當然是zoning裡的地了 就算是普通Council reserve 其實都有它自己的zone 啊

奧克蘭甚至整個新西蘭的土地 有哪裡是沒有zoning 的呢? 除非那是公共用地 那叫designation 就不受一般zoning規定管制了 當然毛利那些或者也有特別處理 這個就不是討論範圍了

评论

MIX HOUSING SUBURBAN地足够大,1000平,缺少雨水管道的话,是不是还是不能分呢?新政下~

新西兰房产

震惊!原来倒灌党全都偷偷买房了!

新西兰某倒灌党大V竟然亲口承认自己已经有房了!宣传裸斩就是为了自己下一套投资房抄底!最可悲的是本打算买自住房却没主见被人当枪使最后还说声谢谢啊。 评论 刚需一直都存在,无非 ...

新西兰房产

银行也纠错?改变短期房价预测

新西兰BNZ drastically lowers house price forecast, says market had 'false start' 这个时候突然意识到了问题所在?之前不是四大行天天喊今年增长2-5% 吗? 才一个月不到就出来承认错误了? 评论 The predictio ...

新西兰房产

求指教:关于房贷利率重新锁定

新西兰谢谢了先~~ 房贷一直放在ANZ六七年了。下个月需要重新锁定房贷,请问明白人,是到期之前自己选择一个ANZ的一年期(目前好像7.14)?还是找贷款中介选一个ANZ的? 或者,请贷款中介帮 ...

新西兰房产

利率不变,准备加息

新西兰https://www.interest.co.nz/economy/127861/reserve-bank-has-left-official-cash-rate-unchanged-55-noting-domestic-inflation-slow 奄奄一息,仍要加息 评论 希望真的能加息,早死早超生。 评论 刁民!妖言惑众,煽乱房 ...

新西兰房产

811个月定存涨到了6.4%

新西兰另外MILFORD ASSETS MANAGEMENT还有一款旗舰产品,不是KIWISAVER, 不是KIWISAVER, 不是KIWISAVER。 是INVESTMENT FUND, 连续十年稳定增长。 10年收益164.02%, 年化收益率是14.02%。如果家里有老人的,你懂 ...

新西兰房产

都说房价房市爹爹爹

新西兰但我看基督城房市很好呀 很多再盖 wigram mall旁边已经开工 几十套貌似卖掉了大部分 评论 基督城房价低,付了20%首付以后,贷款也就50-70万,基本没有压力。奥克兰这几年买house的,随便 ...

新西兰房产

请教关于City的公寓

新西兰孩子要去city上学,想买个小的apartment,但是听说很多apartment都有问题啊,漏水什么的,还有产权都是租赁的, 有没有过来人分享一些信息呢,能不能买,哪个楼盘省心一些,或者还是租 ...

新西兰房产

mlgb的联储和央行

新西兰文中说的服务性通胀就是我们所说的NON TRADEABLE INFLATION 所有国家都这个样子,主要是中央政府和地方政府效率低下,导致地方债务常年堆积,必须涨RATES来增加营收,不然地方政府怕破产 ...

新西兰房产

不谈房,就说说不跟风美国的日本

新西兰这些东西太高大上,草民的我看不懂 评论 砖家说了 崩盘又要开始了,坐稳了 定存什么的,锁在最高点,或者找剑客买基金。 妥妥活镰刀,等危机过去,全球都是优质资产。 哈哈哈哈 ...

新西兰房产

怎么知道附近房子卖出了多少钱?

新西兰怎么知道附近房子卖出了多少钱?怎么估算自己的房子在当前能卖多少钱?有什么网站可看吗? 评论 realestate.co.nz。找个中介最直接,因为房子之间差异很大,一般人不明白,你自己估 ...

新西兰房产

重磅!重磅!重磅!DTI来了

新西兰https://www.interest.co.nz/personal-finance/127974/reserve-bank-says-banks-will-have-comply-new-dti-rules-july-1-while-loan new DTI the banks will have to adhere to: 20% of new owner-occupier lending to borrowers with a DTI ratio over 6; and ...