Council’s high rise towers plan will not help affordability but will wreck heritage neighbourhoods
The latest intensification policies to be imposed on Auckland by the government and Auckland Council have dismayed and angered local residents – many of whom voted at the last election in protest at similar policies of the previous government. Now they are finding it’s a case of ‘new boss – same as old boss.’
The Minister leading this Chris Bishop, has just amended the Resource Management Act which he blames (incorrectly) for the housing affordability crisis – rather than 30 years of neo-liberal policies – to give himself unprecedented directive powers over residential planning in Auckland.
On the face of it, this is for a worthy purpose, to make housing more affordable, or so the minister claims. But of course, he does not intend tackling housing affordability as New Zealand governments once did – and very successfully – by building affordable homes and associated facilities and infrastructure – and then financially assisting mainly young buyers into them. Instead, Mr Bishop being a standard beltway politician, is relying on a market solution – the supply side – deregulating and massively ramping up of the number of sites zoned for potential dwellings. However, the demand side, impacted by the decades-long decline in the average income of working people (25% below that of the early 1980s) and the difficulty, especially for young families to save enough to even put a deposit on a house – he studiously avoids.
Instead the focus has been totally been on deregulating ‘land supply’. In 2016 the Auckland Unitary Plan enabled c 900,000 new potential dwelling in Auckland. This, on top of the then 506,000 existing dwellings (now c 640,000). Then in 2022 the Ardern government’s NPS-UD, and its MDRS (Medium Density Residential Standards) imposed 3 units of 3 storeys over wide swathes of residential zones across Auckland. This was encompassed in the council’s never completed Plan Change 78 which added 2 million potential dwellings. There is debate whether 2 million is the total figure or as according to the report by economist Doug Fairgray it should be added to the AUP figure. Whatever, as the result of lobbying, including from the council, Bishop has allowed the council to withdraw PC 78 and its unpopular 3 x 3 units. But, subject to his directive that any change ‘must enable the same or more capacity for development as PC78.’ So we can safely assume the numbers will be at least as much as currently enabled.
So with at least 2.5 or 3.5 million dwellings real and potential, at an average occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per dwelling, this means Auckland’s population without any consultation with Aucklanders, is meant to increase from the current 1.656 million to a potential 7 to 9 million people! And this despite a multi-billion infrastructure deficit!
St Mary’s Bay special character area (photo Grant Mountjoy).
St Mary’s Bay special character houses (photo Grant Mountjoy).
Mr Bishop’s reasoning is profoundly flawed. As the Character Coalition’s John Burns points out, an oversupply approach would work in the banana market but not the property market – as land, unlike ripening bananas can be and is held back from the market. The extraordinary increase in potential dwellings enabled first by the Unitary Plan in 2013 and then PC 78 and MDRS in 2022 has not made any significant dent in the affordability of houses. Yes, property prices over time are cyclical but it is doubtful the current weakening in prices has anything to do with Plan Change 78 ‘ghost dwellings’ and much more to do with Auckland’s current economic situation with unemployment currectly 6.1% and increasing. Unlike Christchurch City Councillors who in 2022 effectively told the government to where to get off, Auckland Council continues to go along with this. Moreover, its planners are using the public transport device of ‘walkable catchments’, but instead of the recommended ‘800m on flat ground’ recommended by the international expert Jan Ghel, council planners have extended thse by 50% to 1200m e.g. up College Hill. This to enable property developers to reach into the highly desirable northern slopes of St Mary’s and Herne Bays currently a special character area. ‘Location, location, location’.
The consequence of this, would be to replace a unique historic townscape of beautiful historic villas with walls of 15 storey, 50m high apartment towers – with 6 storey blocks almost everywhere else. Yet council has no plans to complete separation of sewage from stormwater here for 15 years. Thankfully Ponsonby and Grey Lynn are still largely spared (the latter as a result of an AUP intensification exchange deal which I won on behalf of the Grey Lynn Residents Association with the support of then mayor Len Brown in 2013).
It must be said that I believe intensification around transport nodes is sensible but it needs to be done well. This is not the case with the council plan.
Photo Grant Mountjoy
Rather than solving the problem of housing affordability, the replacement of one bad plan with an arguably even worse plan, seems to be all about maximising the developer sector profits, while wrecking the amenity, stealing the views and often the sunlight of existing residents. When will the council stand up for Auckland and its long-suffering ratepayers?
