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
乱
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~