Some New Zealanders might be clinging on to the quarter acre dream but the reality is that low density urban sprawl inhibits our ability to create livable cities. Urban intensification is critical if our cities and towns are to become well-functioning urban environments. A compact urban form ensures better access to services and facilities via public transport, walking and cycling, enables the efficient provision of infrastructure and assists in meeting climate change goals. The theory is that an increase in supply of land zoned for intensification will also help housing availability and assist in controlling house prices.

Sick of waiting for councils to achieve intensification via standard planning tools, the Government directed that councils relax zone rules in urban environments through:

• The National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) which requires councils to add significant capacity to the land available to be developed for housing and business use within urban centres well-served by public transport where people can easily access jobs, services and amenities.
• The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (Enabling Housing Act), which might be more loosely described as “achieve that intensification we asked you for, but much sooner, please”. Councils are also required to apply medium density residential standards (MDRS) across urban areas as a minimum density requirement.

The dispersed medium density intensification required by the MDRS across swathes of suburbs is difficult to service with infrastructure, compromises urban form and potentially undermines the greater level of intensification desperately needed around centres and close to rapid transit routes. In this respect the intensification plan changes are a blunt tool. The RMA reforms, and the regional spatial strategies proposed under them, provide an opportunity to masterplan development in our urban areas in a way that improves outcomes for communities. Unfortunately the rushed through intensification plan changes are unlikely to support that outcome.

The plan change requirements

Tier 1 councils (councils in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch) have started to notify the plan changes implementing the following requirements in the Enabling Housing Act and NPS-UD:

• MDRS: enable three dwellings up to three storeys to develop on all sites within the urban area as a permitted activity (no resource consent needed). The medium density residential standards have immediate legal effect.
• NPS-UD: Tier 1 authorities must also allow for at least up to six-storey buildings within walkable catchments of the edge of metropolitan centre zones, the edge of city centre zones and existing and planned rapid transit stops.

The intensification requirements are mandatory unless a qualifying matter applies. Qualifying matters include matters of national importance under s6 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), any matter to give effect to any other NPS, for the purpose of ensuring safe or efficient operation of nationally significant infrastructure or “any other matter that makes higher density development inappropriate in an area”. If relying on a qualifying matter, councils must produce a comprehensive s32 report demonstrating why the qualifying matter is incompatible with the required intensification and the impacts of limiting development capacity including the costs.

Unsurprisingly, different councils have taken different approaches to qualifying matters. On September 5th, Minister Parker stated that “in general there has been a high level of compliance [by councils] with what [the Government] has requested”. While Minister Parker would not comment any further on the issue, Government officials have expressed displeasure with the way Auckland Council in particular as approached the identification of qualifying matters. Legal challenge to Auckland Council’s approach has been signaled as a possibility. It is not clear whether that challenge would be by submissions lodged by Kāinga Ora, as was the case during the Auckland Unitary Plan (‘AUP’) process when Kāinga Ora pursued greater intensification of Auckland through the submission process.

The Auckland approach

Many of the qualifying matters listed in the NPS-UD are already protected in the AUP through overlays. These overlays are essentially carried over as qualifying matters. More controversially, Auckland Council has opted to identify the two qualifying matters outlined below.

Special character areas 

Large swathes in Devonport, Grey Lynn, Helensville, Howick, Lower Hinemoa Street, Mount Eden Village, Newmarket, Ōtāhuhu, Parnell, Ponsonby, and West Lynn have been included in the special character overlay. Auckland residents generally sit in one of two camps. First, those who consider special character areas are important to the fabric of the city and justify protection. The residents of affluent areas which have been left out of the overlay (including large parts of St Mary’s Bay, Herne Bay and Remuera) will no doubt ne the most vocal in their opposition to the exclusion of these areas. Their views contrast starkly with those who consider that the Council’s heritage assessment carves out large swathes of houses holding no historical values other than their age. They will argue that there is a difference between ‘character’ and ‘heritage’ and that only thing special about the homes in many of these areas is their age. 

Infrastructure constraints

A limited number of sites have been excluded from the provisions due to identified stormwater, wastewater and water supply constraints. The analysis focused on specific areas which have been identified as difficult to service on a network scale. Any consideration of the potential need to upgrade local water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure to service individual sites subject to the MDRS is completely absent. The MDRS will result in pepper-pot development across the suburbs in a way that will challenge infrastructure providers ability to respond in a rational and planned way.

Similarly, enabling a relatively low level of intensification in the suburbs without considering access to public transport will only worsen existing carbon emissions and congestion. Increasing intensification in the suburbs will also place pressure on schools, parks, sports fields and other public amenities. The Government’s mandated requirements certainly has not made Auckland Council’s already difficult task of providing infrastructure any easier.

The approach by other councils

Councils approaches to s6 matters has been fairly straightforward. As noted above, a variety of approaches has been taken to “other” qualifying matters by the Tier 1 Councils. By way of example, various councils have chosen to identify the following qualifying matters:

• Historic heritage area overlays (Hamilton and Rotorua);
• Cultural villages (Rotorua);
• Infrastructure capacity with respect to Te Ture Whaimana (Hamilton and Waipā);
• Areas of significance to Maori (Kāpiti Coast);
• Character Precincts (Wellington City); and
• Character clusters and character streets (Waipā).

It is clear that many councils have struggled with the speed of the process. Upper Hutt City Council has, due to time constraints, opted to notify its proposed plan change without the inclusion of any additional qualifying matters. Similarly, Waikato and Selwyn District Councils have not included any additional qualifying matters in their plan changes.

Christchurch City Council is the only Tier 1 council that has not notified housing intensification plan changes. Instead, the Council has voted against formally notifying and/or inviting submissions on intensification plan changes, despite the fact that compliance with Government direction is mandatory. The Council had already received an extension to notify until 23 September 2022, however, on 13 September 2022, the majority of Councillors chose to vote ‘no’ to the new housing intensification standards, which were considered an unsuitable ‘one size fits all’ approach.

The next steps

The residents of Tier 1 councils have the opportunity to submit on the changes, but only via a streamlined hearing process with no right of appeal and the Minister for the Environment making the final decision where the council disagrees with the recommendation of the independent hearing panel. The submission period closing dates are as follows:

• Auckland Council – 29 September 2022
• Hamilton City Council – 30 September 2022
• Waikato District Council – 28 October 2022
• Waipā District Council – 30 September 2022
• Tauranga City Council – 23 September 2022
• Kāpiti Coast District Council – 27 September 2022
• Christchurch City Council – to be confirmed by the Council
• Porirua City Council, Hutt City Council, Selwyn District Council and Waimakariri District Council – closed

Please get in touch in you require further information about how the plan changes affect your property or wish to consider lodging a submission.