Christopher Luxon vocally opposed 'plonking down' apartment blocks in his electorate, and now he wants to give back power to city councils to decide where to build medium-density housing
Analysis: Less than 24 hours into his leadership, Christopher Luxon must make a snap decision about stamping his authority on Parliament more firmly than any other incoming opposition leader in recent memory.
Parliament's environment select committee meets one last time tomorrow, on Thursday, before reporting back contentious changes to the Resource Management Act that would allow three-to-four-storey houses throughout New Zealand's five biggest cities, without requiring consent approval.
It is contentious, despite the fact that it was agreed in a bipartisan deal between the Government and ousted National leader Judith Collins, negotiated by housing spokesperson Nicola Willis who is now deputy leader, and agreed by the National caucus.
Luxon has signalled he will prise open the cross-party deal and revisit it. And not just to tinker with peripheral detail; he wants to rework the fundamental questions of the say local councils have in approving or rejecting housing developments, and how they should be designed to keep neighbours happy.
This is familiar ground for Luxon. In last year's election, he campaigned against the proposed construction of a 54-unit block on a ridge between suburban Howick and Cockle Bay.
Standing in front of the abandoned mechanic's workshop that occupies one corner of the 5,700 square metre site, he posted a Facebook video warning that its approval would be "a dangerous precedent", not just for Howick but throughout Auckland.
"Developers here want to turn it into a 54-resident dwelling. And the bottom line is, that can't happen. There are other parts of Auckland that make sense for us to put higher density dwellings into." – Christopher Luxon, in Botany
"I'm on the site of Steward Motors," he told supporters. "I remember this because as a kid, right across the road is Cockle Bay Primary and across the road is my old school Howick College. I went to both those schools, I remember this place really well.
"Developers here want to turn it into a 54-resident dwelling. And the bottom line is, that can't happen. There are other parts of Auckland that make sense for us to put higher density dwellings into.
"This is an area that should always stay a single dwelling zone. We've got to think more strategically about infrastructure. We can't just plonk multi-unit dwellings in place and not have the supporting infrastructure."
Auckland Council, which initially supported the development, now opposes it – but has kicked the resource consent application upstairs to the Environment Court for a ruling. Because of Covid lockdowns, the hearing has been postponed first to December 6, 2021, and then to February 28, 2022. Costs are mounting – the site's developer David Jans say he's already spent nearly $2 million on the proposal, even before the consent application is heard.
He is publicly battling Luxon and local residents' groups for approval to build the apartment complex. He accuses the new leader of pandering to well-off Nimbys in an affluent part of the city ("Go and build this in a low lower socioeconomic area") rather than accepting the importance of a sustainable solution to the housing crisis. "I was disappointed with what he did. And I was extremely surprised that he made comments that were factually wrong."
Once he was a National voter, Jans said; now Luxon has lost his vote. "Politicians should not get involved in resource consenting. It's going to an Environment Court hearing. You don't go and mouth off about things that are being heard by independent commissioners and the judge."
What all this means is that the role of council in resource consenting decisions is one with which Luxon is very familiar. And the fact that Auckland Council was persuaded to reverse its position, after local opposition, will embolden him. This enables him to turn his attention to the bigger national picture: the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
Green MP Eugenie Sage is chair of the environment select committee. "As committee chair I can say, the committee has worked very hard on this bill and to take account of public submissions, and will be reporting back tomorrow," she told Newsroom today. "That's the plan at this stage."
Rather than tearing up the bipartisan housing deal in the select committee this week, Luxon and Willis can buy themselves more time to agree their changes by introducing amendments at the bill's next Parliamentary reading.
"There were sort of two thematics ... design guidelines and flexibility for local government – and we want to digest that feedback and propose some amendments to that legislation, which Nicola will be engaging with the Government around.” – Christopher Luxon
They could go back to Cabinet minister Megan Woods and David Parker and renegotiate the deal, then the Government would introduce the changes. Or they could take the even more combative approach of introducing their changes through a supplementary order paper of their own. The Government would have the numbers to vote it down – but Cabinet is anxious for this to proceed as a bipartisan deal, rather than allowing National and Act to turn housing intensification into an explosive election issue.
Whether National breaks up the deal in select committee, or by renegotiating with ministers, or by introducing an amendment, that provides the new leader with a rare opportunity for political brinkmanship. It is unusual that any Government would be looking to the Opposition for support on such a big and divisive issue.
In response to questions from Newsroom, Housing Minister Megan Woods and Environment Minister David Parker issued a terse three-sentence joint statement.
“The select committee process has, as expected, brought in a range of suggested changes to the bill which the committee is considering and we are open to looking at recommendations on how it might be improved," they said.
"From what we have seen there are some sensible suggestions to further strengthen the Bill. The committee, including Labour and National members, will be working through these matters.”
“Land developers using the new planning thresholds for Auckland are not the bad guys here... Turning it into a sensational battle of good versus evil is simply outdated.” – Kitt Littlejohn, barrister
Questions about the survival of the bipartisan deal were first raised last week by Newsroom. This week, after emerging victorious from the National Caucus meeting, Luxon and Willis were asked whether National would stand behind the bipartisan housing accord.
“Look, where we are is we want to make sure we’re building more houses in this country, and we want to do it in a sustainable way and an enduring way," Luxon replied.
“We've had a process where we've had a bill go to select committee, that select committee is about to be deliberated on and the select committee gave us a whole bunch of feedback from experts from local government, from local citizens.
“There were sort of two thematics coming out about that – design guidelines and flexibility for local government – and we want to digest that feedback and propose some amendments to that legislation, which Nicola will be engaging with the Government around.”
Back in Luxon's electorate of Botany, David Jans observes that Luxon is happy to support intensive development in low socio-economic neighbourhoods like Panmure town centre, but not in more affluent suburbs like Cockle Bay.
"It's inequitable for some parts of Auckland to have to have very intensive development right next door to them, and some parts of Auckland where you can't build a damn thing.
"You imagine what would happen in Auckland if residents had the ability, if they rallied around enough, to stop everything that needs to be done. We'd be living in a complete mess. And it's bad enough as it is."
He said most of the residents groups were objecting to increased traffic. "They think it's fair that they should be able to live in their suburb, and not be exposed to more traffic – when the rest of Auckland has to cope with ever-increasing population."
"There are people in the community that are supportive of it, but they don't want to single themselves out and and be opposed by all these people that are so vocal about trying to stop it." – David Jans, Box Property
It's apparent that Jans feels somewhat set upon in the local political furore. On the Quarterdeck website, he has posted a quote from Auckland barrister Kitt Littlejohn: “Land developers using the new planning thresholds for Auckland are not the bad guys here and there is no justification to treat them as such. They are perfectly entitled – indeed, are now encouraged by the new National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity – to apply to develop land with more intensive land uses in urban areas.
"Neighbours are also perfectly entitled to object. Neither is right or wrong – they are simply responding to a change in the planning regime and the direction that has been clearly signalled by national government. Turning it into a sensational battle of good versus evil is simply outdated.”
Jans said he'd had support for the development from a local school principal, a police officer with two children looking for a home, and a retired doctor looking to move in. "There are people in the community that are supportive of it, but they don't want to single themselves out and and be opposed by all these people that are so vocal about trying to stop it."
He said a bipartisan agreement was a fantastic initiative, though it needed refining. Box Property is fighting through the Environment Court for their existing proposal, 14m away from the shared boundary. But ironically, he said, the company would be able to build right up to 1m from the boundary under the new rules.
Cockle Bay Residents and Ratepayers Association chair Laurie Slee was watching Luxon's elevation to leader with excitement. He rejected accusations of Nimbyism; he had been grateful to have Luxon champion the group's cause in Sandspit Rd – he was even happier to see him take on residential intensification nationwide.
The association has already lodged a select committee submission, opposing the Resource Management Act changes. "Unplanned intensification of housing will potentially result in ... destruction of character and heritage value areas, loss of unique characteristic of New Zealand cities and townships," the submission says. "There is potential for building standards to drop which could lead to another leaky building scenario."
"This comes back to the point about Nimbyism – I'm quite convinced that we need intensification. I think it has to be better managed rather than an ad hoc basis where the developers can decide where to intensify." – Laurie Slee, Cockle Bay Residents
Laurie Slee expanded on the association's view, in a Newsroom interview this week.
"Local government needs to have a much stronger say on where exactly developments can occur," he said. "You're talking about along main arterial roads where there's good transport connections, you're talking about where there's adequate infrastructure capacity already. If you have an ad hoc development, that's going to throw all basic plans about infrastructure, upgrading, enhancements, and so on out the window."
He believed Luxon would want to rework the bipartisan deal so developments are approved in a much more structured fashion, reflecting a longer-term framework for development. As for himself, Slee would like to see the deal turfed out entirely. "That's a personal viewpoint rather than a committee viewpoint, but I think most of my members here would say the same thing," he said.
"This comes back to the point about Nimbyism – I'm quite convinced that we need intensification. I think it has to be better managed rather than an ad hoc basis where the developers can decide where to intensify."
Environment Judge Melinda Dickey said the hearing for the Sandspit Rd resource consent application was originally scheduled for the week commencing August 30, 2021. "However due to the Covid-19 lockdown, it had to be rescheduled," she said. "The Court’s over-riding consideration when allocating fixtures is to ensure the safety of all participants. Because of concerns about the number of witnesses and uncertainty about how a hearing could be managed it was determined appropriate to adjourn the hearing until February 28, 2022. Decisions about the timing of a hearing have been made in the context of what the Court knows at the time about Covid-19 restrictions and what is a reasonable allowance for parties to prepare properly for a hearing."
