The product of rare bipartisan policy development, housing intensification reforms are in turn attracting a broad range of criticism, with supporters and opponents alike pointing out areas for improvement
Analysis: When Housing Minister Megan Woods and National leader Judith Collins took to the stage last month to announce a united front against nimbyism, the explicit hope was a rare case of agreement between Labour and National could provide a buffer against the headwinds of any opposition.
“Having broad political consensus on these changes, gives homeowners, councils, investors and developers greater certainty,” Woods said of the parties backing legislation to streamline housing intensification and speed up implementation of new urban development rules.
But the law, which would allow three homes of up to three storeys to be built without a resource consent on most sites in major cities, is nonetheless proving contentious in its relatively limited life to date.
There have been more than 1000 submissions on the bill despite an unusually curtailed three-week consultation period. Many support its intent, to improve the country’s supply of housing and ease the overheated market, but there is considerable debate over whether it will actually achieve its goals.
Local councils were among the initial critics of the reforms, with their concerns about infrastructure funding and a one-size-fits-all approach filtering through to the select committee process.
Local Government NZ’s submission accused the Government of being “overly focused on the planning system” and failing to properly consider the costs of providing the necessary infrastructure for such intensification, while suggesting nimbyism could simply move elsewhere in the system rather than being eliminated altogether.
“For us in Selwyn, we’ve got 18 private plan changes that are in various timeframes being worked through at the moment ... there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by both the individuals who have applied but also for us as a council that have been involved in those processes.” – Sam Broughton, Selwyn mayor
“By only focusing on planning reform the likely result is that the anti-development focus will shift to the political economy surrounding infrastructure funding," the submission says.
"This is not an insignificant risk, given how highly leveraged Tier 1 cities currently are, and how oversubscribed available funding is likely to be now and into the medium term.”
The Hamilton City Council – among the high-growth ‘Tier 1’ councils who would be immediately affected by the intensification requirements – declared the bill “so fundamentally flawed that it should be withdrawn”, while Auckland Mayor (and former Labour MP) Phil Goff has not held back in criticisms that the bill could lead to poorly-designed homes and worsening infrastructure costs.
Selwyn Mayor Sam Broughton, who oversees one of the fastest growing districts in the country, told Newsroom he supported greater residential intensification, “but the way that it’s come about doesn’t help engender a partnership approach between central government and local government”.
“For us in Selwyn, we’ve got 18 private plan changes that are in various timeframes being worked through at the moment ... there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by both the individuals who have applied but also for us as a council that have been involved in those processes, and it’s not particularly clear how they will be affected.”
Broughton said the central Canterbury district had been able to grow rapidly without enabling legislation like what was being proposed, but its infrastructure investment to date had been based on planned density which could increase significantly (along with the costs) as a result of the intensification reforms.
However, the Infrastructure Commission has argued councils’ claims of unacceptable financial strain are misleading, saying that while intensification will increase the overall usage of network infrastructure is “unlikely to increase significantly if at all”.
“People, rather than buildings, drive network infrastructure demands. Six people housed together in one house will use the same amount of water, wastewater, and transport infrastructure as the same six people living in two separate homes on the same site.”
The commission in fact suggested the Government increase the minimum number of houses which can be built without consent, from three to five, citing the greater spread of fixed costs for infrastructure like wastewater pipes.
Its submission also noted, though, that increased development opportunities would increase uncertainty about where infrastructure demands might increase, in turn creating “some short-term financial risks for councils” which relied on development contributions to repay infrastructure loans.
'Unintended and perverse consequences'
Professional bodies related to the housing and real estate sectors have also expressed concern with the legislation, including its blanket approach to intensification.
The Institute of Architects said it was concerned with the bill’s lack of provisions to protect local neighbourhoods, character areas and the wellbeing of communities, which would likely create “unintended and perverse consequences for current and future generations”.
“Several territorial local authorities have experimented with permissive urban intensification controls across suburbs and neighbourhoods and have unfortunately learnt the hard way how unsatisfactory such controls are in practice without appropriate ‘checks and balances’ and the long‐term legacy they leave behind.”
The NZ Planning Institute’s submission likewise focused on the possibility of unintended consequences, noting concerns about a lack of time for professionals in the urban planning and resource management sectors to implement the plan change processes required, while the Registered Master Builders Association said the medium-density housing areas which would be created – particularly in the outskirts of Tier 1 cities – would need appropriate infrastructure to be a success.
“The association is of the view that housing areas that are not well supported with accessible and sufficient public facilities and transport become isolated communities. This is not a desirable future.”
The Resource Management Law Association was particularly scathing, its submission suggesting the Government focus on issues of infrastructure capacity, immigration settings and materials shortages, “rather than further undermining the integrity and effectiveness of the planning system by amending the RMA yet again”.
“It's most likely just that people don't understand how dire it is at the moment. If you're overcrowded in a single family house with four or five other families, the amount of space you have per person is much less than what is provided in a small apartment.” – Scott Caldwell, Coalition for More Homes
But the bill does have its supporters, including the Coalition for More Homes – an umbrella group representing more than a dozen different organisations in favour of (funnily enough) more homes.
The group’s submission decried “hand-wringing” about “Soviet-style towers, whatever that means”, noting that the demand projections for Auckland would amount to less than a doubling of housing numbers over several decades.
While there would need to be work on areas like infrastructure funding, the coalition said that was an issue which could be addressed “thoughtfully and progressively” over time without the need to reject planning reforms.
Coalition spokesman Scott Caldwell told Newsroom the group was strongly supportive of the broad-brush approach to intensification, which could help justify frequent bus services all over cities rather than in the main transport corridors and aid decarbonisation, while also giving people greater choice in housing as their lives changed.
Caldwell said arguments that the bill would lead to urban slums ignored the fact that “the only reason that a person would move into one of these places is if it provides a higher quality of living for a lower price than what they can currently get”.
“It's most likely just that people don't understand how dire it is at the moment. If you're overcrowded in a single family house with four or five other families, the amount of space you have per person is much less than what is provided in a small apartment.”
That is not to say the coalition does not have suggestions about how the bill could be improved.
Its submission said so-called sausage flats – long, narrow housing blocks which extend down the depth of a site and leave little room for green space or sunlight – could be addressed by removing the planning requirements at the front of a site, allowing windows to be oriented towards the street while creating the possibility of a large, shared green space at the back of sections (what is known as the ‘perimeter block’ model).
The debate over the intensification reforms, with different groups arguing for different exceptions, provided proof of why the legislation was needed, he said.
“ I'm sympathetic to these concerns, but the [Auckland] Council hasn't really taken a balanced approach in the past, right? They haven't said, you know, ‘We'll manage these in narrow ways, but we'll allow enough capacity overall’. They've just said, ‘We're gonna be narrowly focused on all these tiny little issues, and we'll never build anything ever’.”
While central government politicians can be just as susceptible to public pressure as their local body counterparts, so far Labour and National have shown no sign of abandoning their support for the proposals (although the select committee appears certain to recommend some significant alterations).
ACT leader David Seymour has leapt into the fray in Collins’ absence, launching a public awareness campaign about what he has described as a plan to “change the landscape of suburban New Zealand”.
Whether Seymour’s campaign succeeds and spooks National remains to be seen.
Certainly, the “broad political consensus” Woods spoke of seems certain to come under more pressure before the bill is passed into law.
