SOAC 2017

Auckland’s Urban Sprawl, Planning Frameworks and Peri-Urbanisation to Pukekohe.

Cristian SilvaSchool of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract: Although urban sprawl has been largely discussed, the range of determinants for the incorporation of rural lands remain less systematised and mainly framed by transport improvements, housing shortage and land-market constraints. Because of that, measures to tackle impacts of sprawl are lacking considering that its determinants operate as interlinked and somehow embedded within planning policies and regulations. Additionally, some of them rely on rural forces, landowners’ interests and rural plans outside urban boundaries that influence land-use changes of peri-urban areas. This paper discusses these interlinked determinants placed in planning regulations to demonstrate that many of them are indeed supported by, finally stimulating further suburbanisation. This is contextualised in Auckland and illustrated through the case of Pukekohe – a recently incorporated rural village for housing intensification – in which key regulations of control provide enough flexibility to incorporate agriculturally productive lands. The paper concludes that planning tools for controlling sprawl in Auckland are still partial in their capability to manage dispersed suburbanisation and to integrate the complex spectrum of rural forces and environmental values that define the character of peri-urban lands.

Key words: Urban Sprawl; Planning Policies; Peri-Urbanisation; Auckland; Pukekohe

1 Introduction Urban sprawl has been widely discussed from different perspectives but mainly driven by the housing debate (Phelps, 2012; Charmes and Keil, 2015) and transformation of peri-urban areas (Gallent and Shaw, 2007; Ravetz and Loibl, 2011). In this light, there is a persistent focus on understanding sprawl as an uncontrolled phenomenon – barely addressed by regulatory frameworks – that illustrates a dislocation between ‘the planned city’ and ‘the real one’ defined by random additions of peri-urban lands (Qian and Wong, 2012). Nevertheless, urban sprawl occurs in the scope of planning regulations suggesting that missed determinants are still pending to be included or simply that planning rationales deliberately contribute to urban sprawl (Bruegmann, 2005; Couch and Karecha, 2006; Kombe, 2005).

This paradoxical condition of ‘controlling and enabling’ is less explicit in the planning literature – apart from contradictions of neoliberal planning schemes – but is clearly illustrated from the literature on political ecology, ecosystem services, natural capital and green-infrastructure, in which planning mechanisms appear as ignoring environmental and rural forces (Tacoli, 1998; Zhang et al., 2013; Heynen et al., 2006). This partly explains the large number of uncompleted projects driven by urban design frameworks as substantial transformations of peri-urban lands often follow differing directions or ‘out of plan’ contingencies (Keil and Macdonald, 2016; Vallance, 2014; Carrion-Flores, 2004; Keeble, 1995). In the Australasian context, for instance, although mechanisms to control extended peri-urbanisation it is nevertheless the most persistent trend (Hamel and Keil, 2015) driven by finally ambiguous regulations and norms (Forster, 2006; Willing and Pojani, 2017).

In the case of Auckland, controlling sprawl relies on a metropolitan plan that incorporates peri-urban lands under two figures: the ‘Rural Urban Boundary’ (RUB) and ‘satellite towns’. One of those satellites is the southern rural village of Pukekohe – distanced 50km from central Auckland – consolidated as a rural service town (Auckland Council, 2012, Pukekohe Area Plan, 2014). Apart from its inclusion for housing intensification, the plan does not disclose the arguments to set up specific agricultural properties between Pukekohe and Auckland, or the interests of rural landowners in changing peri-urban land-uses. This is particularly relevant as Pukekohe’s surroundings are agriculturally productive and reputed by a series of well-known environmental services (Powell and Lambert, 2013; Curran-Cournane et al., 2014; Curran-Cournane et al., 2016). Several authors have highlighted this issue describing consolidation of urban sprawl from non-urban goals, opening a more regional understanding of suburbanisation (Keil and Macdonald, 2016; Vallance, 2014; Carrion-Flores, 2004).

The aim of this paper is to discuss planning policies as the scope of interlinked determinants of urban sprawl to then inspect the presence (and absences) of rural dimensions on peri-urbanisation in Auckland. It would demonstrate that Auckland’s sprawl is driven by planning schemes and rural dynamics although clear aims for controlling the expansion. This is empirically exemplified by the

SOAC 2017

incorporation of Pukekohe, to finally conclude that Auckland’s regulations contribute to traditional sprawl. It is suggested that more sustainable planning should include urban-rural dynamics based on the understanding of peri-urban boundaries as a different geography that deserves its own planning approach.

2 MethodologyThe analysis presented in this paper is part of a larger study aimed to inspect the different determinants of Auckland’s urban sprawl linked to the role of rural landowners in transforming peri-urban lands. In this paper, a fraction of collected data is discussed mainly based on analysis of key planning policies and regulations. This research is particularly relevant considering multidimensional efforts for controlling Auckland’s extended suburbanisation through different instruments, including intensifying suburban zones and improvements on transportation.

The research adopted a qualitative approach to examine policy conflicts to understand the extent to which planning policies give effect to urban sprawl it employs a document analysis approach (Bowen, 2009) collated to empirical data from official statistical databases. Key planning documents analysed are The Auckland Plan, The Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part 2016), the Rural Urban Boundary Report, Transport Issues Report (The Auckland Unitary Plan), Rural Production (Greenfield Study Areas), the Addendum for The Rural Urban Boundary (Auckland Unitary Plan), the Capacity for Growth Study (2006), the Pukekohe Area Plan (2014) and The Auckland Council District Plan (Operative Franklin Section 2000). Documentary review also includes secondary research, government reports, masterplans and urban design proposal, statistical databases, and relevant journalistic reports related to the Pukekohe and Auckland’s urban growth.

Site visits are still being undertaken and aimed to observe the peri-urban space subject to housing intensification. Among limitations, considering that this is an ongoing research, methods are predominantly focused on document analysis and will be complemented with semi-structured interviews with central and local planners, policy-makers, developers and rural landowners of relevant peri-urban areas. The research is also limited by the lack of secondary research on Pukekohe from an urban planning perspective. However, this is complemented by environmental studies on the Pukekohe area and its agricultural attributes. What is still unpacked, are the interests of peri-urban landowners in transforming Auckland’s urban-rural boundary.

3 The ambiguous nature of urban sprawl Urban sprawl is generalised to describe most of patterns of urban growth in almost all cities, assuming that sprawl is the expression of uncontrolled determinants although planning regulations of control (Oueslati et al., 2015; Pirotte and Madre, 2011). There are different constraints in disclosing its determinants, but they are mainly related to the understanding of sprawl as such, the nature of planning policies, and the inclusion of a wider range of factors placed on the rural scope.

Regarding conceptual understandings, there is a consensus in indicating that not all patterns of urban growth can be properly identified as an instance of ‘urban sprawl’ and thus, determinants of urban growth not necessarily explain urban sprawl as such. There is still an open debate regarding the elements that define a sprawling pattern and the boundaries of a sprawling area (Barnes et al., 2001; Ewing et al., 2002; Wolman et al., 2005). At any case, ‘urban growth’ as ‘urban sprawl’ follows two streams of arguments. First, the idea of dispersed suburbanisation driven by the increasing use of private cars driven by construction of motorway systems (Gillham, 2002; Soule, 2006), and second, the increasing demand for living near the countryside signalised as ‘suburbanisation’ (Hamel and Keil, 2015; Hess, et al., 2001). A morphological consensus describes sprawl as largely characterised by low-density residential neighbourhoods, regional transport infrastructure, car-dependency, single land-uses and lack of physical continuity (Torrens, 2006; Barnes, et al., 2001; Jaret, et al., 2009). As such, it is highly criticised for its environmental, social and economic impacts (Gallent and Shaw, 2007; Thomas, 2001).

Although critics, morphological descriptions are insufficient to indicate any form of urban growth as ‘sprawl’ and thus, more policy-based factors are considered. Nelson (1999) asserts that land-use conversion, population change, traffic and vehicle miles travelled, energy consumption and fiscal measures are relevant in defining sprawl (Nelson, 1999). Also, technical studies suggest that a set of indicators are crucial to determine ‘the sprawl index’ and thus, identify an urban area as in sprawling condition (Galster, et al., 2001; Wolman et al., 2005; Jaret et al., 2009)

SOAC 2017

Another conceptual constraint pertains to the assumption that urban sprawl is an ‘urban’ issue, not possible to be explained from different categories of suburbanisation (Peiser, 2001; Gillham, 2002; Harvey and Works, 2002; Irwin and Bockstael, 2007; Leontidou and Couch, 2007). However, emerging literature links urban sprawl with transformation of fringe-belt areas not purely driven by urban forces. It appears as a non-exclusive dimension of the urban realm that embraces urban-rural interactions, depicted by mixed landscapes composed by urbanised fragments interspersed with rural lands. So, the idea of ‘urbanized countryside’ proposed by Sieverts (2003) arises to better describe this ambiguous urban-rural territory, understood as a new geography which is neither urban nor rural at all but that embraces characteristic of both (Sieverts, 2003). Tacoli (1998) argues that urban sprawl and peri-urban areas are conceptually problematic because urban and rural activities take place in the same geographical space, a hybrid zone in which agricultural and non-agricultural activities spatially and functionally coexist (Tacoli, 1998). It suggests that peri-urban areas are not simply unintended encroachments of the rural space for the city, but a spatial category in its own right in which different institutional representations shape distinctive modes of suburban governance (Hamel and Keil, 2015) and define a spatial category that deserves particular attention and alternative policy approaches (Wandl and Magoni, 2017). So, urban sprawl is complex, ambiguous and multifaceted, and not only determined by urban but also rural fluctuations. This clarification is relevant because urban sprawl is nevertheless a continuous incorporation of peri-urban lands and thus, a process that should be assessed more by its dynamics rather than its static and transitional fragmentation (Hess, et al., 2001).

4 The urban-rural boundary and planning implications As a dynamic process, urban sprawl defines different configurations over time. It could be heterogeneous in its degree of land fragmentation and functional complexity, even within the same urban region and thus, could not show a homogeneous urban-rural interface (Ravetz and Loibl, 2011; Qian and Wong, 2012).Advanced stages of suburbanisation define new complexities of urban-rural boundaries characterised by increasing functional self-sufficiency, concentration of employment and a certain degree of disconnection from traditional urban centres (Charmes and Keil, 2015; Phelps and Wood, 2011; Calthorpe and Fulton, 2001). Similarly, contemporary peri-urban boundaries appear as scenarios of emerging patterns of ‘polycentricity’ in which different sub-centres attract population and employment growth (Van Oort, et al., 2010; Kloosterman, and Lambregts, 2001). From a regional viewpoint, ‘multi-functionality’ describes peri-urban boundaries where different functions coexist linking urban and rural activities (Gallent and Shaw, 2007; Faludi et al., 1996; Fazal et al., 2012). These spaces are more multifaceted and complete suburbanisation processes – beyond residential land-use – such as conurbations zones or satellite towns that as part of wider urban-regional systems (Burger and Meijers, 2011; Van Oort et al., 2010; Roe and Saglie, 2011).

For some, the varied character of peri-urban boundaries appears as expression of advanced capitalist processes in which market trends and asymmetric institutional relations delay planning reactions and leave instruments of control behind de facto situations. In this context, successful land management relies on individuals’ leadership capacities and clearly exceed the supremacy of technical solutions or macro-scale plans (Kombe, 2005; Phelps, 2012). It reinforces the idea that planning orthodoxies should be reinterpreted in the light of emerging realities and acceptation of peri-urban boundaries as independent territorial categories (Wandl, 2017; Gallent and Shaw, 2007). There is a view that planning rationales leave crucial determinants of suburbanisation aside – including those placed in the rural realm – or simply that they implicitly arrange the uncontrolled transformation of peri-urban lands by omission. Indeed, anti-growth narratives assumes sprawl as ‘unplanned’, evincing its unintended nature driven by unforeseen determinants (Hebbert, 1986). Therefore, a closer inspection of planning policies is needed as it could provide a wider understanding of the extent to which urban sprawl is implicitly triggered by the same instruments that aim to control it.

5 Planning policies, urban sprawl and peri-urbanisation Empirical studies identify determinants of urban sprawl as causal factors linked to housing policies, land market constraints and infrastructure (Oueslati.et al., 2015). Nevertheless, there are some limitations as they are based on European realities and monocentric city models characterised by clear relations between land fragmentation, land prices and income growth triggering suburbanisation (Oueslati.et al., 2015; Pirotte and Madre, 2010; Hamel and Keil, 2015). Social factors such as rates of crime in central areas also encourage suburbanisation along with land-use changes of agricultural lands closer to urban markets (Qian and Wong, 2012; Van Leeuwen and Nijkamp, 2006). In this light, it is recognised that closer inspection on the different planning dimensions and policies is needed for a wider understanding of rationales that enhance suburbanisation at different levels (Pirotte and Madre, 2010; Oueslati et al., 2015).

SOAC 2017

5.1. Transport infrastructureA well-discussed determinant that operates upon peri-urbanisation pertains to the inclusion of rural lands near transport infrastructure. This is also criticised because although planned, these areas are not always consolidated and define strong pressure on land-use changes (Weber and Puissant, 2003; Camagni, et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2013). Transport is a strong indicator of land competitiveness that encourage developers and public authorities to obtain parcels well served by roads or early information on future political decisions related to transport investments (Gillham, 2002; Soule, 2006; Cervero, 2003; Keil and Young, 2011; Batten, 1995).

5.2 The ‘suburban dream’ It is also clear that middle-class population demand available lands to fulfil the long-standing desire of living near the countryside according to income increments and access to private cars (Ekers et al., 2012). This is complemented by the fact that rural lands outside urban limits tend to be cheaper, affordable for new families led by the ‘suburban dream’ (Hess et al., 2001; Beauregard, 2005; Phelps, 2012).

5.3 Cheaper outer lands Cheaper outer lands also lead suburbanisation beyond consolidated areas. It defines different levels of land fragmentation as developers build new neighbourhoods at some distance from existing urban areas creating a series of vacant parcels in-between that contribute to fragmentation of urban boundaries (Holcombe, 1999). It supposes affordability and advantages related to the open space and thus, residents accept longer commutes in exchange of lower-priced houses (ibid, 1999).

5.4 The ‘urban limit’ The presence of the so-called ‘urban limit’ to control the expansion also contributes to urban sprawl and peri-urbanisation. Depending on the region, it could take the form of a virtual line in a map or a concrete zone around the city (such as the ‘Green Belts’) in which construction is restricted or simply prohibited (Gallent and Shaw, 2007; Kühn, 2003; Morrison, 2010). At any case, the ‘urban limit’ appears as an unsuccessful tool as it does not stop the expansion at all and even works in an opposite way (Grimes and Liang, 2009; Petermann, 2006; Evans, 2006; Schulze, 2010). According to López (1981) this is a disturbing tool as the division of a land in ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ by an arbitrary line increases its value without any condition or extra-cost for the owner. Additionally, land division encourages landowners to change functions of those portions outside the limit as their profitability increases with a real estate development. So, the ‘urban limit’ has a paradoxical effect: while it tries to prevent uncontrolled growth, it creates a perverse incentive for incorporating the countryside trying to modify norms and functions (López, 1981). As a side-effect, low-income families use to be relocated further away on cheaper lands – increasing distances to work places – or on rural villages that define local pressures for services triggered by unplanned demographic increments.

5.5 The absence of an ‘urban limit’ Detractors of the ‘urban limit’ consider its abolition for increasing the land-stock and thus, affordability (Petermann, 2006; Gross, 1991; Pavez, 2011). However, if this measure is not linked to market regulations what is seen is that peri-urban landowners keep their lands undeveloped to gain value over time. Therefore, the peri-urban area can enter into a fast land-price increment that creates expensive and unaffordable rings around the city. Thus, new families should be relocated on remote areas or rural villages many times without proportional responses on transport and services (Ducci, 1998; Rodriguez y Sugranyes, 2004).

5.6 Conurbation zonesAnother determinant that shapes peri-urbanisation are conurbation zones. Mainly linked to transport infrastructure these areas are increasingly complex due to unregulated coexistences of rural and urban functions (Kassa, 2013). On the one hand, several rural plots still keep animals and factories that increasingly disturb new residents who decided living near clean and quiet environments (Ducci and Gonzalez, 2006; Banerjee et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013). On the other hand, encroachment of agricultural lands diminishes their performances and quality of impervious surfaces triggering environmental deregulations. As a consequence, along with relocating industrial facilities unexpected superficial water flood local and external areas and diminishes agricultural fertility (Curran-Cournane et al., 2016; Barkasi et al., 2012)

5.7 Regeneration policies The absence of regeneration policies to recover underused spaces also contributes to sprawling expansion. Implementation of revamping processes of inner lands appears as expensive and without

SOAC 2017

political support to address brownfields, landfills and other infrastructural lands (Silva, 2017; Frantál et al., 2015). Additionally, clusters of private landowners that form larger suburban vacant lands not always coincide in development interests and thus, leave their lands undeveloped contributing to relocation of new developments on peri-urban areas (Gilly and Wallet., 2001; Adams et al., 1994)

5.8 Taxation on empty lands Weak taxation (or any form of impact fee) on undeveloped inner lands contributes to peri-urbanisation as landowners leave properties empty for catching value over time (Song and Zenou, 2006; Clawson, 1962). In some cases, it derives to physical land’s erosions due to the lack of security and maintenance that finally affects the overall suburban landscape. So, lack of taxation on undeveloped, derelict, abandoned, vacant, underused or even inner lands trigger further peri-urbanisation and reinforce detriments of internal areas by lack of maintenance, cleaning or security ( Ige and Atanda, 2013; Foo et al., 2013).

5.9 Institutional asymmetriesThe encroachment of the peri-urban boundary is also determined by institutional asymmetries between rural and urban representations. Unbalanced power between ministries of agriculture, food, environment, infrastructure, housing, and others define the extent to which urbanisation will take place on peri-urban boundaries. These processes are highly sensitive to political and technical capacities for managing land development beyond urban limits, relying on actors’ support conferred by legal attributions (De Zeeuw et al., 2000; La Greca et al., 2011). Specifically, agricultural authorities use to be in a political position in which rejecting urbanisation on rural lands are unpopular, and have very limited influence in defining the urban limit and other conditions for preserving rural areas (De Zeeuw et al., 2000; Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 1999).

6 Auckland’s urban sprawl, the urban-rural boundary and PukekoheAuckland is the largest city of New Zealand, recognised as one of the most important urbanised areas in the whole Pacific Rim (Statistic New Zealand, 2014; Memon et al., 2007). It is home to one third of New Zealand’s population (Chambers & Walters, 2013) and over the next 30 years is going to accommodate 60% of population growth – increasing from 1.5 million to 2.3 million people – mainly fuelled by natural growth and both internal and overseas migrations (Statistic New Zealand, 2014). It is also known that the city is currently facing substantial environmental pressures linked to the rapid population growth, urban expansion, suburban intensification and increasing needs of infrastructure and services (Mattingly and Morrisey, 2014; Eason et al., 2003b).

Considering that Auckland is often commented as an instance of traditional suburbanisation (McArthur, 2017; Gu, 2010; Mouat and Dodson, 2013; Latham, 2000), determinants that explain this condition are less discussed and still perceived as somehow failed efforts from planning instruments for controlling peri-urbanisation (Gunder, 2002; Bradbury and Bogunovich, 2013; Memon et al., 2007). It is worth noticing that planning instruments in New Zealand operates at national and regional levels and give special relevance to urban growth strategies, housing and urban design regulations, most of them matched with contemporary narratives of urban sustainability (Mattingly and Morrissey, 2014; Ghosh and Vale, 2009; Dupuis and Dixon, 2002).

Although seen as an example of a developed-world city, Auckland is nevertheless characterised by implications associated to urban sprawl (Memon et al., 2007). During the last 20 years, Auckland has evolved from a traditional agglomeration of suburban districts towards an amalgamated metropolitan entity regulated by a general framework plan: ‘The Auckland Unitary Plan’. This contemplates current Auckland’s growth but also expansion on urban boundaries and rural areas, and simultaneously advocates for a ‘compact city model’ indicating that a 70% of future urban developments will be placed within the urban boundaries and a 30% outside the consolidated area (Auckland Council, 2102). Bradbuty and Bogunovich (2013), however, indicates that future urban growth in Auckland could describe a more detailed geographical expansion that somehow vanish the abrupt urban-rural opposition opening at least four zones – urban, suburban, peri-urban and ex-urban – that would configure its character as city-region (Bradbuty and Bogunovich, 2013).

In the light of a more complex peri-urban geography, Auckland’s suburbanisation emerges as relatively homogeneous as it still follows traditional low-density residential patterns (Ghosh and Vale, 2009) and thus, the plan advocates for a more compact city model associated to benefits of residential densification/intensification (Allen, 2015; Carroll et al., 2011). Although the plan aims to consolidate ‘the world’s most liveable city’ (The Auckland Plan, 2012, pp. 18), it also states the need for expansive

SOAC 2017

growth, peri-urban and ex-urban extensions that contribute to urban sprawl and associated detriments. To control this apparently paradoxical figure, urban development outside boundaries would be limited with exception of the selected locations of Warksworth in the North and Pukekekohe in the South, both small villages surrounded by agricultural and environmental assets (Bradbuty and Bogunovich, 2013). Aside from differing positions, expansion areas are necessary considering current housing shortage, but their inclusion is criticised due to the environmental impacts of urbanisation on a series of well-reputed ecosystem services (Curran-Cournane et al., 2014). This countered view is partly explained from consolidation of a neoliberal agenda that still cannot harmonise economic growth with environmental protection, and thus, leads to more unregulated and flexible approaches that emphasise managing impacts of activities rather than prescribing to support economic efficiency and growth (Memon et al., 2007; Berke et al., 2006; Gunder, 2104).

Supposedly and under this rationale, suburbanisation beyond the limits would improve housing affordability. However, Grimes and Liang (2008) argue that Auckland does not describe a typical economic geography to assume that outer lands become cheaper. That argue that Auckland will be more polycentric, surrounded by natural amenities that increment land prices and additionally distorted urban limits and other restrictions that do not have methods for land-value capture (Grimes and Liang, 2008). This is more critical considering that ‘affordability’ is still debatable and undefined in current New Zealand legislation (Brebner, 2014). The Auckland Plan states that ‘there is no agreed definition or measure of “affordable” or “unaffordable” housing’ (The Auckland Plan, 2012, pp. 269) but indicates that housing affordability is still a priority considering ‘the housing crisis’ (ibid: 269), and because Auckland is recognised as the highest price-to-rent ratio and the second highest price-to-income ratio of countries that belong to OECD (OECD, 2014). To address this issue, the Plan indicates the release of land in the ‘Rural Urban Boundary’ (RUB) to ensure sufficient development capacity (The Auckland Plan, 2012) considering that value of land within the limit is around nine times higher that prices just outside (Brebner, 2014).

6.1 The Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) and PukekoheThe RUB is a key tool for the general control of Auckland’s extended suburbanisation. It replaced the ‘Metropolitan Urban Limit’ (MUL) in 2010 and defined a geographical zone formed by rural and urban areas complemented by infrastructure and services (Auckland Council, 2012). The Auckland Plan clearly indicates that – although proposed growth zones – the RUB would provide flexible conditions that allow up to 40% of new homes can be built outside the urban limit in well-planned Greenfields, necessary to ensure land availability for the next 30 years to meet housing needs (ibid, 2012). This approach is to provide certainty for communities, landowners, infrastructure providers and developers on where Auckland will experience the most significant changes. The RUB is based on land availability and states that natural features (rather than environmental or ecological properties) will be considered to provide well-defined physical boundaries (ibid, 2012). For the Auckland Unitary Plan, the RUB is a geographical space ‘that will define the maximum extent of urban development to 2040 in the form of permanent rural-urban interface’ (Addendum, 2013a, pp. 07), and embraces part of the metropolitan area, rural-coastal villages, and the satellite towns of Warkworth in the North and Pukekohe in the South. It indicates that the RUB encourages further growth in existing urban areas to protect the rural space. Nevertheless, it also states that Greenfield areas for investigation will be delineated by the RUB and thus, urban boundaries can be reshaped (ibid, 2013).

Although the plan also states that urban expansion on rural villages must ‘avoid urbanisation of highly productive farmland and versatile soils where possible…’ (The Auckland Plan, 2012, pp. 230), it simultaneously considers re-zoning rural lands for future urbanisation as a ‘zone intended to allow rural activities to continue until urban development can take place’ (ibid, 2013b, pp. 4), explicitly determining their temporary character. Once transformed into urban, it indicates that their value increase with the concurrent transference of wealth to the landowner (windfall gain as outcome of rezoning decisions) and thus, the plan proposes that the Council receives a proportion of this land-value capture to re-investing on infrastructure, public goods, affordable housing or further growth. However, this mechanism is still pending as the Local Government Act should be first changed to ensure proper power to levy it (ibid: 2013b). Overall, peri-urban and rural lands that surround Auckland are subject to urbanisation as part of the RUB that defines a fragmented landscape of still agriculturally productive agricultural lands and satellite towns.

Pukekohe – one of these satellites located at the Franklin district – and its rural surrounding illustrate how extended suburbanisation operates from metropolitan regulations on highly productive rural lands. It includes the areas of Paerata and Drury located between Pukekohe and Auckland, all intended for housing intensification and well served by transport infrastructure (Auckland Council, 2017) (Figure 01). This area is recognised as one of the most fertile lands of the Auckland region, known for its frost-

SOAC 2017

free climate and highly productive rural soils largely used for vegetable production (Curran-Cournane et al., 2016; Moran, 1979). It embraces around the 86% of Class 1 land – considered a powerhouse in terms of outdoor vegetable production (Statistics NZ, 2011) – and source of a significant economic activity and employment in the whole Auckland region and the highest amongst all other regions in New Zealand (Curran-Cournane et al., 2016).

This area is also identified in rural studies as one of the main sources of relevant Greenfield sites to be protected from urban encroachment, highlighted for food provision for the entire region (Powell and Lambert, 2013). Only the southern space composed by Karaka, Paerata and Pukekohe contributes with around a 60 % of the whole turnover per hectare dominated by dairying, livestock grazing, vegetable growing and cropping. They have soils labelled as Class I, II and III that define the Franklin district as the most competitive in terms of exports to other regions and local supply (ibid, 2013). The Pukekohe area ‘…has some of the most productive soils in New Zealand and has long been associated with market gardening’ (Franklin District Plan, 2000, pp. 1) predominantly located in future urban development zones that can clearly diminishes their productivity and impacts on the overall economy as – along with northern Greenfields – contributes with 10.6% of the Auckland region’s GDP (ibid, 2013).

01. Auckland region and expansion areas.

Auckland Region’s Rural Soils, Auckland Plan and Pukekohe Expansion Areas (Author’s image based on Auckland Unitary Plan, 2012 and Pukekohe Area Plan, 2104).

In terms of urbanisation rate, the plan states that 400,000 additional households should be completed by 2040, and that 40% – including employment growth – will be located outside metropolitan boundaries including Pukekohe, rural coastal towns, greenfield areas for investigation and rural villages (Addendum, 2013a). Here, Pukekohe area is intended to host around 50,000 people, up to 55,000 dwellings and 35,000 jobs (Arbury, 2012). The areas for urbanisation around Pukekohe are the ‘core’ areas of Paerata North, Pukekohe North East, Pukekohe West, Pukekohe South and Drury, all for housing intensification (ibid, 2012). Prioritised scenarios have been defined around transportation corridors and hubs – highly considered in comparison to other Greenfields – as they have significant implications in public expenditure. This would significantly extent Auckland’s urban area and the size of Pukekohe.

Following the adoption of the Auckland Plan, Pukekohe was zoned ‘future urban’ in the Unitary Plan. Subsequently, the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, adopted to sequence the development of future urban areas across the Auckland Region, determined that part of Pukekohe be available for urban development now with remaining areas coming on stream from 2023 (Auckland Council, 2017). An area is considered ‘development ready’ if bulk infrastructure is available and if quality urban outcomes, as outlined in the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan, can be achieved (ibid, 2017). The

SOAC 2017

anticipated dwelling capacity for Pukekohe is approximately 7,920 (ibid, 2017). Within the bounds of the RUB, and as enabled in the Unitary Plan, the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy identifies when urban development can begin to expand into the previously rural area between the existing urban area and the RUB.

Although economic and environmental contributions, maintaining rural properties is becoming increasingly expensive, partly because of high-costs associated with land ownership. High land-values mean that rural producers may need to produce goods more efficiently, sell into high-value market niches or increase productivity per hectare to become competitive. As alternative, cross-subsidise rural production costs with off-farm income emerges for supplying commercial rate of return. Nevertheless, it also triggers strong incentives for land subdivisions following urban purposes, finally, translated into various environmental impacts related to land fragmentation (Powell and Lambert, 2013). It is expected that the area finally becomes a desirable place to live partly stimulated by planned transport improvements and its definition in the Auckland Unitary Plan for housing intensification (Auckland Council, 2012).

7 Conclusions Urban sprawl is mainly seen as an unexpected outcome of planning policies and regulations. However, they also enhance extended suburbanisation as simultaneously provide contradictory definitions and flexible interpretations on land restrictions. This is partly explained by the understanding of urban sprawl as an ‘urban’ phenomenon led by centralised policies – rather than a regional one – that does not include rural forces and environmental values that operate upon peri-urban lands. The understanding of this rural-regional dimension of sprawl suggests alternative approaches for planning the urban-rural interface. The ‘urbanized countryside’ could shift the way of traditional functions – based on exclusive farming productivity or purely housing intensification – to activities that decrease natural processes and incorporate the rural character as part of the urban environment, finally challenging planning for ecological modernisation.

In the case of Auckland and its extension to Pukekohe, several studies highlight the ecological dimension of this peri-urban boundary. However, suburban growth cannot be restrained and is indeed prospected by planning instruments to enhance traditional suburbanisation. In this vein, it is expected that planning and building practices to consolidate Auckland’s boundaries consider their highly efficient agricultural performance – including rural landowners’ interests – to harmonise urban and environmental values. To do so, it worth exploring different figures to regulate peri-urban boundaries as they emerge as a different geography that deserves a planning approach in its own right.

8 References Adams, D., Russell, L. and Taylor-Russell, C. (1994) Land for industrial development. Spon, LondonAllen, N. (2015) ‘Understanding the Importance of Urban Amenities: A Case Study from

Auckland’. Buildings, 5(1), 85-99Arbury, J. (2012). Auckland Unitary Plan – Rural Urban Boundary. Discussion Paper. Transport

Issues. Auckland Strategy & Research Department. Auckland Council. Auckland, New Zealand. Auckland Council (2013a) Addendum to the Draft Auckland Unitary Plan. 15 March 2013. Available

at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Documents/unitaryplanaddendumrub.pdf (accessed 30 July 2013).

Auckland Council (2013c) The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Print version available at: http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/xc.enquire/UnitaryPlanElectronicPrint.aspx (accessed 10 July 2013)

Auckland Council District Plan. Operative Franklin Section 2000. Available at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/DistrictRegionalPlans/franklindistrictplan/Pages/franklindistrictplan.aspx (accessed 12 July 2017)

Auckland Council, Pukekohe Area Plan, 2014. Available at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/areaplans/Pages/pukekoheareaplan.aspx (accessed 10 July 2017).

Auckland Council. Capacity for Growth Study 2013 (Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan):Results. Available at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Documents/tr2014010capacityforgrowthstudy2013results.pdf (accessed 10 July 2017)

Auckland Council. The Auckland Plan March 2012. Auckland Council ISBN 978-0-473-21410-4. Online version available at: http://theplan.theaucklandplan.govt.nz (accessed 09 July 2017).

SOAC 2017

Banerjee, A. Duflo, E. and Qian, N. (2012) ‘On the Road: Access to Transportation Infrastructure and Economic Growth in China. NBER Working Paper Series N° 17897. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA. 02-50

Barkasi, A., Dadio, S., Losco, R., and Shuster, W. (2012) ‘Urban Soils and Vacant Land As Stormwater Resources’. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. 569-579

Barnes, K. B. Morgan III, J. Roberge, M. and Lowe, S. (2001) ‘Sprawl development: its patterns, consequences, and measurement’. Towson University, Towson, 1-24.

Bowen, G. A. (2009) ‘Document analysis as a qualitative research method’. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Bradbury, M., and Bogunovich, D. (2013) ‘Resilient Sprawl: An Alternative Auckland Plan’. Governing City Futures Conference 16th – 17th August Sydney Australia

Brebner, M. (2014) ‘Auckland's housing affordability problem’. NZJ Envtl. L., 18, 207.Bruegmann, R. (2006). Sprawl: A compact history. University of Chicago press.Burger, M. and Meijers, E. (2012) ‘Form Follows Function? Linking Morphological and Functional

Polycentricity’. Urban Studies. 49 (5) 1127 – 1149Calthorpe, P. and Fulton, W. (2001) The Regional City. Island Press. Washington. Covelo. LondonCarrion-Flores, C., and Irwin, E. G. (2004). ‘Determinants of residential land-use conversion and

sprawl at the rural-urban fringe’. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(4), 889-904Carroll, P., Witten, K. and Kearns, R. (2011) ‘Housing Intensification in Auckland: Implications for

Children and Families’. Housing Studies. 26(3) 353-367Chambers, P., and Walters, A. (2013) ‘Auckland Council: Creating a transformational shift towards a

sustainable eco-economy’. In R. Simpson & M. Zimmermann (Eds.). The Economy of Green Cities (pp. 381-390). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Charmes, E. and Keil, R. (2015) ‘The Politics of Post-Suburban Densification in Canada and France’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, IJURR. 39(3), 581-602

Clawson, M. (1962) ‘Urban Sprawl and Speculation in Suburban Land’. Land Economics. 38 (2) 99-111

Couch, C., and Karecha, J. (2006) ‘Controlling urban sprawl: Some experiences from Liverpool’. Cities, 23(5), 353-363.

Curran-Cournane, F., Cain, T., Greenhalgh, S., and Samarsinghe, O. (2016) ‘Attitudes of a farming community towards urban growth and rural fragmentation—An Auckland case study’. Land Use Policy, 58, 241-250.

Curran-Cournane, F., Vaughan, M., Memon, A., and Fredrickson, C. (2014) ‘Trade-offs between high class land and development: Recent and future pressures on Auckland's valuable soil resources’. Land Use Policy, 39, 146-154.

De Zeeuw, H., Gündel, S. and Waibel, H. (2000) ‘The integration of agriculture in urban policies’. In Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Feldafing, Germany. Pp. 161 – 180

Ducci, M. (1998) ‘Santiago, ¿una mancha de aceite sin fin?, ¿Qué pasa con la población cuando la ciudad crece indiscriminadamente? [ Santiago, An Endless Oil Stain? What Happens with Population when the City Grows Indiscriminately?]. EURE (Santiago), 24 (72), 85-94

Ducci, M. and Gonzalez, M. (2006), ‘Anatomía de la expansión de Santiago, 1991-2000’ [‘Anatomy of the Santiago’s expansión, 1991-2000’], in A. Galetovic (ed), Santiago: Dónde estamos y hacia dónde vamos, [Santiago: where we are and where we go], Santiago, Chile, Centro de Estudios Públicos, 123-46

Dupuis, A., and Dixon, J. (2002) ‘Intensification in Auckland: Issues and policy implications’.  Urban Policy and Research, 20(4), 415-428.

Eason, C. T., Dixon, J., Feeney, C., van Roon, M., Keenan, B., & Craig, J. (2003b) ‘Providing incentives for low-impact development to become mainstream’. The 3rd South Pacific Conference on Stormwater and Aquatic Resource Protection, NZWWA, Auckland. Available at: http://www. landcareresearch.co. nz/publications/researchpubs/Eas onE79.pdf (accessed 10 July 2017)

Ewing, R. Pendall, R. and Chen, D. (2002) ‘Measuring Sprawl and its Impact’. Volume 1. SG America. P. 1-55

Faludi, A.; Van Der Valk, A and Lörzing, H. (1996) ‘The Green Heart Debate’. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. 87 (5) 448 – 457

Fazal, S., Geertman, S. C. and Toppen, F. J. (2012) ‘Interpretation of Trends in Land Transformations-A Case of Green Heart Region (The Netherlands)’. Natural Resources, 3(3), 107-117

Foo, K., Martin, D., Wool, C. and Polsky, C. (2013) ‘The production of urban vacant land: Relational placemaking in Boston, MA neighborhoods’. Cities, 35, 156-163

Forster, C. (2006). The challenge of change: Australian cities and urban planning in the new millennium. Geographical research, 44(2), 173-182.

SOAC 2017

Gallent, N. and Shaw, D. (2007) ‘Spatial Planning, Area Action Plans and the Rural-Urban Fringe’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (05) 617-638

Galster, G; Hanson, R; Ratcliffe, M; Wolman, H; Coleman and Freihage, J. (2001) ‘Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept’. Housing Policy Debate 12 (4) 681-717

Ghosh, S., and Vale, R. (2009) ‘Typologies and basic descriptors of New Zealand residential urban forms’. Journal of Urban Design, 14(4), 507-536.

Gillham, O. (2002) ‘What is Sprawl?’.The Limitless City. A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate. ISLAND PRESS. The US

Gilly, J.P. and Wallet, F. (2001) ‘Forms of proximity, Local Governance and the Dynamics of Local Economic Spaces: The Case of Industrial Conversion Processes’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 25 (3) 553 – 570

Grimes, A. and Liang, Y. (2009) ‘Spatial Determinants of Land Prices: Does Auckland’s Metropolitan Urban Limit Have an Effect?’. Appl. Spatial Analysis, 2, 23-45

Gu, K. (2010) ‘Exploring the fringe belt concept in Auckland: An urban morphological idea and planning practice’. New Zealand Geographer, 66, 44-60

Gunder, M. (2002) ‘Auckland's motorway system: a New Zealand genealogy of imposed automotive progress 1946-66’. Urban Policy and Research, 20(2), 129-142.

Gunder, M. (2014) ‘Fantasy in planning organisations and their agency: The promise of being at home in the world’. Urban Policy and Research, 32(1), 1-15.

Hamel, P. and Keil, R. (Eds.) (2015) Suburban governance: a global view (Vol. 1). University of Toronto Press.

Harvey, T. and Works, M. (2002) ‘Urban Sprawl and Rural Landscapes: Perceptions of landscape as amenity in Portland, Oregon’. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability. 7 (4) 381-396

Hebbert, M. (1986) ‘Urban Sprawl and Urban Planning in Japan’. The Town Planning Review. 57 (2) 141-158

Hess, G. Daley, S. Dennison, B. Lubkin, S. McGuinn, R. Morin, V. Potter, K. Savage, R. Shelton, W. Snow, C. and Wrege, B. (2001) ‘Just What is Sprawl, Anyway?’. Carolina Planning. 26 (2) 11-26

Heynen, N., Kaika, M., and Swyngedouw, E. (2006) ‘Urban political ecology’. In: The nature of cities: Urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism (Heynen, Kaika and Swyngedouw Eds.). Pp. 1-20

Holcombe, R. (1999) ‘In Defense of Urban Sprawl. Enhancing the Quality of Life’. Urban Sprawl: Pro and Con. PERC REPORTS, 17 (1) 1-20

Ige, J.O and Atanda, T.A (2013) ‘Urban Vacant Land and Spatial Chaos in Ogbomoso North Local Government, Oyo State, Nigeria’. Global Journal of Human Social Science & Environmental Science & Disaster Management. 13 (2) 28 – 36

Irwin, E. and Bockstael, N. (2007) ‘The evolution of urban sprawl: Evidence of spatial heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (52) 20672 - 20677

Jaret, C. Ghadge, R. Williams Reid, L. and Adelman, R. (2009) ‘The Measurement of Suburban Sprawl: An Evaluation’. City & Community 8 (1) 65 – 84

Kassa, F. (2013) ‘Conurbation and Urban Sprawl in Africa: The case of the City of Addis Ababa. Ghana Journal of Geography. 5, 73 – 89

Keeble, D., and Tyler, P. (1995). ‘Enterprising behaviour and the urban-rural shift’. Urban Studies, 32(6), 975-997

Keil, R., and Macdonald, S. (2016). ‘Rethinking urban political ecology from the outside in: greenbelts and boundaries in the post-suburban city’. Local Environment, 21(12), 1516-1533.

Kloosterman, R. and Lambregts, B. (2001) Clustering of Economic Activities in Polycentric Urban Regions: The Case of the Randstad. Urban Studies 38 (4) 717 – 732

Kombe, W. J. (2005). ‘Land use dynamics in peri-urban areas and their implications on the urban growth and form: the case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’. Habitat International, 29(1), 113-135

Kühn, M. (2003) ‘Greenbelt and Green Heart: separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64 (1–2) 19–27

Latham, A. (2000) ‘Urban renewal, heritage planning and the remaking of an inner-city suburb: a case study of heritage planning in Auckland, New Zealand’. Planning Practice and Research, 15(4), 285-298.

Leontidou, L. and Couch, C. (2007) ‘Urban Sprawl and Hybrid Cityscapes in Europe. Comparisons, Theory Construction and Conclusions’. Urban Sprawl in Europe. Landscape, Land-Use, Change and Policy. Oxford, UK

Mattingly, K., and Morrissey, J. (2014) ‘Housing and transport expenditure: socio-spatial indicators of affordability in Auckland’. Cities, 38, 69-83.

McArthur, J. (2017) ‘Auckland: Rescaled governance and post-suburban politics’. Cities, 64, 79-87.

SOAC 2017

Memon, A., Davies, T. G., and Fookes, T. (2007) ‘Institutional arrangements for metropolitan government and strategic planning in Auckland’. New Zealand Geographer, 63(1), 43-54.

Ministry of Economic Development, 2011. Food and Beverage Information Project2011: Sector Stream – Produce. Final Report October 2011; v1.29 Cori-olis Ltd., Ministry of Economic Development. Available at: http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/food-beverage/pdf-docs-library/information-project/produce-2011.pdf (accessed 10 July 2017).

Morrison, N. (2010) ‘A Green Belt under Pressure: The case of Cambridge, England’. Planning Practice & Research, 25 (2) 157 – 181

Mouat, C., and Dodson, J. (2013)’ Reviewing the Auckland ‘super city’: towards an ongoing agenda for evaluating super city governance’. Australian Planner, 50(2), 138-147.

Nelson, A. (1999) ‘Comparing States With and Without Growth Management Analysis Based on Indicators With Policy Implications’. Land Use Policy 16:121–127.

OECD (2014), Economic Outlook, Chapter 1: General Assessment of the Macroeconomic Situation. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/Economic-Outlook-97-General-assessment.pdf (accessed 11 July 2017)

Oueslati, W., Alvanides, S., and Garrod, G. (2015) ‘Determinants of urban sprawl in European cities’. Urban Studies, 52(9), 1594-1614.

Parliamentary Counsel Office, New Zealand Legislation. Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas (Auckland) Order (2013) Available at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2013/0446/latest/whole.html (accessed 20 October 2014).

Peiser, R. (2001) ‘Decomposing Sprawl’ The Town Planning Review. 72 (3) 275 – 298Phelps, N. (2012) An Anatomy of Sprawl. Planning and Politics in Britain. Routledge Ed. London. Phelps, N. and Wood, A. (2011) ‘The New Post-Suburban Politics?’. Urban Studies 48 (12) 2591-610Pirotte, A., and Madre, J. L. (2011) ‘Determinants of urban sprawl in France: An analysis using a

hierarchical Bayes approach on panel data’. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2865-2886.Pothukuchi, K., and Kaufman, J. L. (1999) ‘Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of

municipal institutions in food systems planning’. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 213-224.Powell, D. and Lambert, A (2013). Rural production. Comparative analysis. Greenfield Study

Areas.North, North-West and South Auckland. Primary Focus, The Auckland Council. Qian, H. and Wong, C. (2012) ‘Master Planning under Urban-Rural Integration: The case of Nanjing,

China’ Urban Policy and Research. 30 (4) 403 – 421Ravetz, J. and Loibl, W. (2011) ‘The dynamics of the peri-urban: global change and regional

response’. In: Peri-urbanisation in Europe: towards European policies to sustain urban-rural futures; synthesis report; PLUREL [sixth framework programme]. Piorr, A., Ravetz, J. and Tosics, I. (Ed.). Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen.

Rodríguez, A. and Sugranyes, A. (2004) ‘El problema de vivienda de los "con techo"’ [The Problem of those ‘with Roof’]. EURE, 30 (91) 53-65

Roe, P. G. and Saglie, I. L. (2011) ‘Minicities in suburbia. A model for urban sustainability?’.FORMakademisk. 4 (2) 38- 58

Sieverts, T. (2003) Cities Without Cities. An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. Spon Press. London and NY

Silva, C (2017) ‘The infrastructural lands of urban sprawl: Planning potentials and political perils’. Town Planning Review (TPR) 88 (2) 233 – 256

Song, Y., and Zenou, Y. (2006) ‘Property tax and urban sprawl: Theory and implications for US cities’. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(3), 519-534.

Soule, D. (2006) ‘Defining and Managing Sprawl’. Urban Sprawl: a comprehensive reference guide. Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. The US

Statistics New Zealand (2014). Commuting patterns in Auckland: Trends from the Census of Population and Dwellings 2006–13. Available from: www.stats.govt.nz

Statistics New Zealand (2017) ‘Populations projection overview’ Available at: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/projections-overview/subnat-pop-proj.aspx (accessed 10 July 2017)

Tacoli, C. (1998) ‘Rural-Urban Interactions: A Guide to the Literature’. Environment and Urbanization 10 (01) 147-166

Thomas, P. (2001) ‘Urban Sprawl: The English Dilemma’. Natural resources & Environment. 15 (4) 252 – 255, 278 – 280

Torrens, P. (2006) ‘Simulating Sprawl’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96 (2) 248-275

Vallance, S. (2014) ‘Living on the Edge: Lessons from the Peri-urban Village’. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 38(6) 1954-1959

Van Leeuwen, E. and Nijkamp, P. (2006) ‘The Urban-Rural Nexus; A study on Extended Urbanization and the Hinterland’. Studies in Regional Science. 36 (2) 283-303

SOAC 2017

Van Oort, F. Burger, M and Raspe, O. (2010) ‘On the Economic Foundation of the Urban Network Paradigm: Spatial Integration, Functional Integration and Economic Complementarities within the Dutch Randstad’. Urban Stdies. 47 (4) 725 – 748

Wandl, A. and Magoni, M. (2017) ‘Sustainable Planning of Peri-Urban Areas: Introduction to the Special Issue’. Planning Practice & Research. 32(1), 1-3

Willing, R. and Pojani, D. (2017). ‘Is the suburban dream still alive in Australia? Evidence from Brisbane’. Australian Planner, 1-13.

Wolman, H., Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M., Furdell, K., and Sarzynski, A. (2005) ‘The fundamental challenge in measuring sprawl: which land should be considered?’ The Professional Geographer, 57(1), 94-105

Zhang, R., Pu, L., and Zhu, M. (2013) ‘Impacts of transportation arteries on land use patterns in urban-rural fringe: A comparative gradient analysis of Qixia District, Nanjing City, China’. Chinese geographical science, 23(3), 378-388