Source: Radio New Zealand
The government is expected to make an announcement on housing plans for Auckland. RNZ / Kate Newton
The details of the government’s election year U-turn on housing plans in Auckland are expected to be announced shortly.
The Housing Minister has had to grapple with potentially legislating over a plan change that is already underway – a process which he says is “legally complicated”.
“Rarely if ever does it happen,” said Chris Bishop.
But, government ministers say it is “democracy”, and the Prime Minister says he is listening to feedback.
Others are concerned it is slowing the delivery of housing in Auckland.
The change comes after various iterations of plans to allow for more housing in Auckland.
In 2021, National and Labour agreed to allow three homes of up to three storeys tall on most properties in New Zealand.
Auckland Council then had to grapple with the effects of the Anniversary Weekend floods in 2023 and decisions around where – and where not to – build new homes in the future.
Bishop said the council could opt out of the medium-density rules that applied to most cities, as long as it delivered the same number of homes overall.
That was enough for at least the next 30 years of projected growth, a requirement under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) from 2020.
Auckland Council proposed enabling up to two million new homes through a new plan, called Plan Change 120.
This, in part, proposed a change to district plan rules to enable intensification mainly around rapid transit stops and went out for consultation late last year.
Housing Minister Chris Bishop. RNZ/Mark Papalii
In January this year the coalition confirmed it was taking another look at the housing intensification plans after pushback from critics.
“Ultimately, the feedback is saying things are going to need to change, and there will need to be some changes,” said Christopher Luxon in January.
Bishop echoed this the same week, “We needed to make some changes there to make it more sustainable politically.”
He said the 2 million number took on “a life of its own”.
It was not entirely clear what official feedback the government was talking about, given Auckland Council had not yet seen the public submissions at that time.
Chair of the Policy, Planning and Development Committee Richard Hills told RNZ in January staff were still going through the submissions as part of the $3m consultation process.
“The only frustration from council’s point of view, is that all of these requirements on us were passed through cabinet and there are people clearly in cabinet who have acted like they didn’t know about it.”
Auckland Council Policy, Planning and Development Committee chair Richard Hills. Alexia Russell
Bishop shared that frustration, speaking to RNZ this week.
“I’m as frustrated as everybody else,” pointing to the NPSUD which came into effect multiple years ago.
He said Auckland was the last remaining city to implement its rules and regulations around land for housing.
Infrastructure NZ’s Nick Leggett thought central government and Auckland Council had been on the same page.
“I’m never surprised when politics gets in the way of infrastructure.
“Unfortunately, political intervention causes lots of problems and costs more money for New Zealanders when it comes to infrastructure.”
He was waiting to see the details, but was concerned about any weakening of planning allowances that meant “Auckland couldn’t grow up as well as growing out”.
Infrastructure NZ’s Nick Leggett. RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Chief executive of the Property Council of New Zealand, Leonie Freeman, said the development community needed certainty around what you could build and where.
“We had changes with the medium density, we had Plan change 78 now Plan change 120 – any calibration of figures or numbers or where houses are going to go need to be targeted and need to be evidence based.
“We need to take the personal opinions out of it.”
She said when there were continuous changes, it was hard to plan, and if you did start planning then the rules changed, “you’ve wasted a whole lot of time, money and energy”.
“It’s probably unintentionally slowing the delivery of houses in some places in Auckland, or it’s limiting intensification in areas where it does make sense.”
RNZ asked multiple cabinet ministers about making a change despite the formal consultation process still being underway. Bishop, Paul Goldsmith and David Seymour indicated they were listening to constituents and it was “democracy”.
MP for Epsom David Seymour. RNZ / Mark Papalii
Seymour, who is also the MP for Epsom, told the NZ Herald in January the issue of intensification in Auckland had been “highly politicised” and “symobolic” rather than a practical one about how to make it easier to build more houses faster and cheaper.
He said residents in his Epsom electorate were not “anti-intensification”, but if they were told towering buildings would be constructed “looking into everyone’s backyards and their swing sets and their pools”, they would ask, “Why would you do that?”
Speaking to RNZ he said the number of houses stipulated by Parliament was simply too high. He said Auckland Council had not been transparent about where exactly those houses would go.
“If the council had been transparent about what two million actually looked like, we probably would have got a different result in Parliament – we ain’t gonna make that mistake again.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand