Christchurch city councillors put on spot over housing intensification rules

A Christchurch city councillor has urged colleagues not to rebel against the Government’s housing crisis solution – even if they sympathise with a residents’ association campaign railing against unfettered development.

The 16-member city council and mayor Lianne Dalziel have been lobbied to vote against initiating government legislation which effectively enables up to three three-storey townhouses to be built on sections throughout Christchurch without resource consent.

• Plea to councillors to defy housing intensification rules
• Calls to stop housing intensification

Councillors are set to consider rubber stamping the measures at a meeting on September 8, but they were emailed an open letter last week from a group of 16 residents’ associations asking them to at least stall the process.

The Star approached the 16 city councillors on their views regarding housing intensification, 10 provided a response. Those who did not respond were mayoral hopeful Phil Mauger, Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner, Celeste Donovan, Anne Galloway, Melanie  Coker and Catherine Chu.

Dalziel, who is not seeking a fourth term in October, expressed her concerns at a select committee last November before the legislation was passed, and agreed with the residents’ associations sentiment.

“I’ll be responding to them with advice we are receiving about the legal ramifications of what they are proposing,” she said.

Any resistance appears futile, with the Government able to enforce the new measures, a point emphasised by Jake McLellan.

He warned fellow city councillors not to jeopardise the opportunity to tailor the legislation by giving the Government cause to apply default settings.

“The Government has set up a framework that comes into effect whether we like it or not,” he said.

“What we have the power to do is to basically apply it to Christchurch. Yes, the law is the law but you’re able to say: ‘Here are some special character areas we think should be worthy of having a special dispensation’.

“It wouldn’t be a good idea not to vote for it given it is actually softening the Government’s plan.”

Aaron Keown queried why some councillors could be opposed to the policy. “You’ve got a number who are hard core in favour of walking, biking and public transport and yet they’re not into intensification. Just a wee word for the wise, one doesn’t work without the other,” he said.

“Intensification is certainly better for the environment, businesses, people’s time management and for affordability of housing. It’s just got to be done with neighbourhoods, not to neighbourhoods.”

Other councillors contacted by The Star would not reveal how they would vote.

Sara Templeton said urban intensification was essential for all New Zealand cities to address housing affordability, climate change, and to protect productive soils.

“The reality is we are obliged to implement the Government direction on this and if we don’t approve the current proposal, then default settings may apply,” she said.  

“This could mean intensification everywhere across the city without the qualifying matters, such as natural hazards or character areas that we have identified, being able to be excluded.”

 

The remainder of the councillors who replied to The Star had issues with the Government’s remedy.

“I’d favour planning regulations being further relaxed in the CBD to incentivise higher density development there, however, residents have chosen to live in suburban areas, specifically because they do not want a high density style of living. This is  centralisation gone mad,” said James Gough.

Sam MacDonald agreed: “This will destroy suburbs and it’s counter-intuitive to our goal of increasing density and the population of the CBD.”

Yani Johanson was “deeply concerned” about loss of sunlight, privacy, and amenity, such as trees and greenery, and did not agree with Christchurch being subject to the same measures as Auckland and Wellington.

“Christchurch already has plenty of land zoned for housing, and plenty of capacity for higher density due to land use planning changes brought in post-earthquake,” he said.

“Housing affordability dictates we can’t deny the need for housing intensification, the key concern is how it is implemented,” said Tim Scandrett who was still pondering which way to vote next month.

Mike Davidson did not think the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach was appropriate.

“A more bespoke solution developed with council would have created a better outcome for the city,” he said.

“Infill housing needs to be focused in areas that have good public transport and walkable amenities. Increasing housing density also needs to be accompanied with better tree protection, increased tree canopy and green spaces.”

Pauline Cotter said the legislation was appropriate around shopping centres with good transport connections and the CBD, but should not be applied “carte blanche” across the city, especially when the council is trying to attract people to live inside the CBD.

“I’m actually worried about the housing market being flooded and being left with lots of vacant tiny units where once there were trees and gardens.”

Jimmy Chen echoed widely held fears. 

“Residents who live on small parcels of land need special consideration to prevent intensification which will destroy their amenity, access to light, sunlight and gardens,”  he said.

• Have your say: What do you think of the new housing intensification rules? Email your views in 200 words or less to barry@starmedia.kiwi