Abstract
The research undertaken analysed public involvement in and contribution to development projects that have occurred in the city centre of post-earthquake Christchurch and the Waitematā Harbourfront in Auckland. The aim of the research was to analyse differences in public perceptions of the Auckland and Christchurch based projects and to explore how the public make use of such developments. This was done to assess how public participation affects the public’s view of development projects and to establish whether increasing citizen power within the development and planning process leads to greater levels of public approval of development projects. The research included a comparative analysis of the Viaduct Basin/Wynyard Quarter developments in Auckland and the Anchor Projects developed in the post 2011 earthquake in Christchurch. The research is significant in that it recognizes the importance of public participation within the planning process, with the research highlighting how such participation affects development projects.
Data was collected from key informant interviews, surveys, a policy document analysis, and a submission and hearing analysis. The research data showed the role the public play in the development process in New Zealand, and how the differences in the processes undertaken impacted the relevant projects. Key informants highlighted the importance of establishing and maintaining an ongoing engagement process with key stakeholders, with the long-term nature of both developments leading to such relationships producing meaningful results. It is important to note that the ongoing engagement in both projects was with landowners and developers rather than the public, who primarily were involved during large-scale engagement hearings and meetings prior to the development of the Waterfront and Blueprint Plans. The primary difference between Auckland and Christchurch was the lack of a notification process being undertaken in the latter. This was a loss of opportunity for members of the public to engage with the planning process, and instead groups such as Gap Filler engaged with disenfranchised groups to address issues surrounding redevelop and land use. Survey results from the public show a similar approval rating of developments in both Auckland and Christchurch, indicating that the loss of a notification process did not impact the public’s opinion to a high degree, likely because the Christchurch earthquake process was seen to an extraordinary event. Overall, however, the research found that the public are more willing to accept decisions that are made regarding projects if they believe that the input they provide can meaningfully impact decisions that are made in the development process.