The National Party would allow cities to opt out of the Medium Density Residential Zone law it co-created with the Labour Party, but would require them to zone for 30 years of growth.
Housing spokesperson Chris Bishop announced the new policy on TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday morning, after Christopher Luxon told a community rally he had “got the MDRS [medium density residential standards] wrong” this week.
Luxon, who is also the member for Botany, was party leader when the bill passed its final reading in December 2021, but not when the law was written and first introduced.
Deputy leader, Nicola Willis was the driving force on the National side behind the bipartisan housing accord and said in her speech that “concessions on both sides have made this a more enduring piece of legislation”.
That prediction does not appear to have panned out, as the new party leader has ordered a partial turnaround less than 18-months later.
Bishop said they had only confirmed the new policy in the past few days, after Luxon's public comments were made, but denied they were making it up on the fly.
“Policy is an iterative process, right. There's a lot of work that has gone into this. A lot of academic research, a lot of consultation with the people that know what they're talking about to try and come up with a very ambitious package”.
He also denied it was a reversal of the policy his party had co-created and supported until this week, describing it instead as “a refinement”.
“The law currently says you have to allow essentially the three by three across vast swathes of suburban New Zealand, we're saying to councils: you can pick and choose where.”
Going for growth
The new policy allows councils to opt-out of the MDRS entirely, provided they zone enough land for 30 years’ of housing demand “immediately”.
Bishop said this zoning was likely to include converting more farmland on city fringes into suburbs and building ultra-densely on transport corridors such as train lines and bus routes.
National would protect rules requiring councils to zone for six storeys in areas around rapid transit lines and expects local authorities to choose to go much higher to meet targets.
This could mean protecting single family homes in some suburbs while building massive, tall apartment buildings near train stations and main roads.
If councils fail to meet demand targets, the central government would reserve the power to intervene and impose appropriate zoning rules.
“They will have to meet that demand by either doing greenfields or doing density. And, if they don't do it, we will do it for them,” Bishop said.
A policy document shared with the media did not say how long councils would have to complete their zoning plans before the central government intervened.
For reference, Auckland worked on its Unitary Plan for over three years before it was passed in 2016.
Carrot & stick
To get councils moving faster, National would dangle a billion-dollar carrot under the noses of city councillors in the form of performance incentives.
Councils would be paid $25,000 for every dwelling consented above the previous five-year average from a capped $1 billion fund. This is intended to trigger a zoning race.
The policy document said Auckland would have been eligible for a payment of $152 million last year, while Tauranga would have received nothing.
Finally, a National government would also reform infrastructure laws to make it easier for developers to get the infrastructure to build new suburbs on farmland.
These new developments could have targeted rates and levies, meaning home buyers would pay higher taxes to cover the cost of new infrastructure. Central financing tools would be provided, so that cities could borrow money without crippling city balance sheets.
The policy document said the MDRS rules were “a well-intentioned attempt” to add to the housing supply, but had not “proven fit-for-purpose”.
This is a stark contrast to what Willis, then National's housing spokeswoman, said about the law when voting for it in December 2021:
“It will allow people to add more housing to existing residential areas and to add the kind of housing that first-home buyers can more readily achieve—that is apartments, townhouses, smaller dwellings,” she said.
“Only by building more houses and building more affordable houses in the places where people want to live, will we be able to truly restore the idea of an egalitarian property-owning democracy”.
Under the new National Party policy, councils will be able to either implement the MDRS rules as they currently stand or opt out and choose to increase housing growth elsewhere.
Density pricing
High-density zoning laws have been critical in cooling Auckland housing costs, which are now growing more slowly than the rest of the country.
This progress has been due to the Unitary Plan passed in 2016—as the MDRS has not yet taken full effect—and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development set in 2020.
Matthew Maltman, a data analyst and economist who writes a blog called One Final Effort, said the Unitary Plan has been associated with a big increase in new houses being built.
Research by Auckland University’s Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy and Peter C.B. Phillips found upzoning led to around 20,000 new dwellings being consented over a five year period to 2020.
“This impact is equivalent to 3.78% in the city’s dwelling stock, and effectively doubles the rate of housing construction prior to the policy change,” they wrote.
Rents have grown more slowly than the national average and it is now cheaper to rent a house there than in Wellington.
Similarly, house prices in Auckland have increased about 20% since 2016, while prices in the rest of the country have increased by 70%.
“This is supportive of the theory that more elastic housing supply means that demand side factors (such as interest rates) have less of an impact on prices,” Maltman said.
The Medium Density Residential Standards—which overrides local councils and permits three stories and three dwellings in most residential lots—aimed to expand on this success and force these free-market planning rules onto other cities.
Maltman said the policy was estimated to add around 75,000 additional dwellings over the next five to eight years.
All about those votes
While lower income people in outer suburbs seem willing to tolerate this kind of transformation, wealthy voters in central suburbs have often successfully blocked higher density builds.
The ACT Party, which until 2020 was only in Parliament thanks to voters in the Epsom electorate, has opposed the MDRS from the start, despite it being a market-led policy.
Party leader David Seymour said he wanted housing standards that allowed more intensification but with rules that were “sympathetic to existing neighbourhoods and property owners”.
Luxon’s rethink on the MDRS might be a reflection of Act’s recent success among voters which have traditionally been dependable National supporters.
The small-government party held only one seat in parliament for the nine years prior to 2020, when it was able to take advantage of weakness in both National and New Zealand First.
Now, it is on track to scoop up 11% of the vote in 2023 and grow its number of seats to 15, having made inroads with both rural voters and suburban conservatives.
Chris Bishop, on TVNZ’s Q+A, denied the policy was about winning votes back from the Act Party and said National was serious about solving the housing crisis.
He said house prices should be roughly 4 times the median household income—the current national average is more than 7 times—but NZ couldn’t have a price crash to get there.
Instead, he wants household incomes to climb faster than house prices and bring that multiple down over the coming decades.
“I acknowledge that housing got out of control under the last National Government, but here's the thing: it's worse now,” he said.
Also see: Is the bipartisan attempt to boost urban housing density the right way to go?
146 Comments
The bizarre thing is that most Pokeno residents work in Auckland but there is no Railway stop as AT don’t care about North Waikato. We need national housing and transport planning. NZ has a population smaller than Melbourne yet we break everything up into little pieces that don’t connect.
Common sense stuff really, did I not say just build satellite towns with high rise apartments only yesterday ? The trick is getting the transport infrastructure and follow something like South Korea and not build shoebox apartments, they have apartments over there from 80 sq/m up and some have more floor area than my house. Forget about 3 to 6 storey buildings, no good you need to go up 20 stories to get the density and walking distance to bus/train stations.
The trick is getting the transport infrastructure and follow something like South Korea and not build shoebox apartments, they have apartments over there from 80 sq/m up and some have more floor area than my house.
Stayed in a wonderful apartment in Seoul with a friend. Not flash and trendy like Kiwis would like (Mt Maunganui, Takapuna) but kind of older low-rise place. Was winter and the heated floors were incredible (common in Korea). Slept on a futon directly on the floor. One of the best sleeps ever.
"build up to 20 stories high"
So, you're now talking about a dystopia. It seems that we babyboomers had the best of everything.
Growing up in a south Auckland suburb in the 1950s & 1960s my parents built a new house about 1953 on the main road. It had a 1/4 acre section...plenty of room to play:
I only had to cross the main road and there I met my friend at his house and we would cross a sheep paddock and enter a pristine native bush reserve and there we would run wild where ever our imaginations sent us: building tree huts, having stick fights, playing cowboys and indians, exploring, bombarding the roof of a nearby fowl iron roof with mud-sticks, fighting, fishing for native crayfish and going back to my friend's place to light an outdoor fire to cook and eat them, hiding from old-man Mason who sometimes ventured into the native bush from an adjacent estate owned by an eccentric English countess who employed him as a sort of gamekeeper-come- farmhand; he usually had a shotgun crocked over one arm in case he spotted a rabbit. One day we strayed into his wooded territory and he spotted us from afar. As he started towards us our only escape was to climb a tree and when he reached the tree he looked around in every direction but never thought to look up; we were frozen among the branches for about an hour before we dared risk descending and scampering home.
But we were 'out-door' boys. We literally roamed the countryside on our bicycles.
Would I have rather been brought up in a high-density apartment building on the 20th-storey,,,a cloned Asian urban lifestyle?
I think you are ignoring all the good things high density allows like parks, playgrounds, public transport, etc. take a kid out of say Tokyo and drop them into NZ low density and they probably won’t find it better.
Unfortunately Auckland Council insists on medium high density spread all over the place, very hard to also offer great amenities.
Mathes quiz.
Take a 1000sqm section. Say 20m x 50m. Put six 150sqm dwellings on it.
Which has the biggest garden? a) a six 3-story townhouses, or b) a six story apartment building?
Now for some enlightenment ... (six stories is about 18m high. You may use www.suncalc.org to help work this out.)
Which minimizes shading on immediate neighbors in winter? a) six 3-story townhouses, or b) a six story apartment building?
Assuming you got the rights answers - Did you expect the answers that you got?
Too easy.
q1 = b
=> a) 150sqm/3 = 50sqm footprint per TH. 6 x 50 = 300sqm for 6 THs. b) assuming each apartment takes the entire floor - just 150sqm for 1 apt building. The apartment building would provide a garden 150sqm larger than the 6 THs.
q2 = b
=> immediate neighbors are most effected by the first few stories when the shadows are long. As the six town houses are expected to be 11m high and their footprint is twice as large as the apartment building, it seems reasonable to assume the THs will affect immediate neighbors more.
Assuming I got the right answers - what I found interesting is that, while the 18m high apartment building threw the longest shadows, non-immediate neighbors are affected for only brief periods of time, less than an hour for the shadow from the very top floor. Now that was an eye opener! Another eye opener was winter solstice vs. summer solstice. And you said, townhouses, which I assumed meant terraced houses with no gaps between them. If they are separate houses, separated by a 1m gap, then the apartment building fairs even better!
I've bookmarked www.suncalc.org. A very cool tool.
Edited: I got to use it yesterday as a very tall building is being built some 150m away from this-Chris. Turns out - my sunlight will be fine. Not what I expected at all!
Are you calling us battery hens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy
Good high density has a lot of parks, most people would be within walking distance of one. And there is more money to be spent on playgrounds, etc. Manhattan has a pretty good park.
We are not caged, there will always be plenty of low density in NZ if that’s your thing.
Ever been to New York ? High rise apartments and the biggest park you can imagine at your back door. Its all about design and future planning isn't it. If you are starting with empty fields you should be able to build whatever you want. You don't need a 1/4 acre section anymore, since when do the kids even go out ? They are glued to screens anyway.
Seoul has one of the highest density living around (25m metro area) so it isn't really comparable. Go outside of the Gyeonggi area and the housing does become different. A lot of 3-4 level buildings (not unlike older buildings in Seoul), but they do it well by constructing living areas and shops within walking distance. Seoul has more than its fair share of shoebox apartments, though.
I stayed in a new build area of Suwon recently (close to Samsung HQ) and it was perfectly fine. Vast underground carparking that covered multiple apartment buildings was they key point that we do not do at all. The other point being that parts of Asia just don't care about how the outside of the buildings look - big grey slabs of concrete are tolerated and the focus is on the internals.
Rubbish, its all about cost. People are complaining about house prices so you will have to buy an apartment. What you cannot have is some apartment high rise built in some existing leafy suburb because you are fussy about getting the right address. Basically if you don't have the cash you get what you can afford, people these days want the champagne lifestyle on the beer budget, not going to happen.
If you start with a blank canvas and cannot design and build from that then we are screwed with everything else. Last time I read the Chinese had about 250,000 empty apartments and totally empty cities they had built. Maybe we need to get more Chinese here for them to start building. We seem to be incapable of anything in this country, except maybe forming committees, working groups and paying consultants millions for designs that never go ahead.
We do need affordable housing but it needs to be in the right place. Should we go build a bunch of apartments on the West Coast just because the land is cheaper?
Housing needs to be in proximity of jobs, otherwise what we gain by making them cheaper we lose to inefficiency from gridlock and increasing infrastructure costs from urban sprawl.
What you cannot have is some apartment high rise built in some existing leafy suburb because you are fussy about getting the right address
Why not? With apartments, the whole point is that the land cost can get split between more units making them more cost-effective. The roadblock isn't land prices for apartments, instead, it's stupid zoning and stupid council red tape.
Like honestly, could you give us a single example of a city that has been built this way?
Almost every other major city intensification effort has focused on building up outwards from the center. Why on earth would they go build a massive apartment building 30km out from where the majority of the jobs are? It's a recipe for even more sprawl and crippling traffic that directly harms productivity.
The only reason these aren't getting built is because of stupid zoning and stupid amounts of red tape imposed by NIMBYs. If someone buys land, why do existing inhabitants get to impose what other people can do with it, it's ridiculous. No other great city let itself be held back like that in the past, London, Tokyo, New York, etc, they all built up and out, not "build outwards then slowly work your way back in maybe but probably not".
Central Auckland is the only part that makes sense for intensification as you can go anywhere from there, you can go west, you can go south, you can go north without as much of a ballache as the other areas. Ever tried driving from West to South during rush hour?
It's also where we have all of our incredibly expensive rail infrastructure is already set up, anything greenfield will require enormously expensive investments to bring it anywhere close to the same level of services that are already available close to the core.
Should just steal the Japanese zoning system, they seem to have infrastructure figured out.
In Japan, widely described as having the most efficient infrastructure anywhere, housing density is highest near train stations and along bus corridors, and lowest away from public transport. Anything else leads to really bad traffic.
I don't see why we have to permit "anything, anywhere", and I also don't see why councils should be able to block developments near said public transport hubs.
In Japan, widely described as having the most efficient infrastructure anywhere, housing density is highest near train stations and along bus corridors, and lowest away from public transport. Anything else leads to really bad traffic.
Last place I rented in Osaka had access to 6 different trainlines with closest being 10-min walk. Next friggin' level. Gives you a whole different perspective on what development can be.
In central Auckland building up on the major transport routes makes sence. That said the blanket ruling allowing density in character areas everywhere is crap for some, aka a 6m pink box on a street of beautiful and maintained villas, especially on your northern boundary. Note this most likely requires owner occupiers vs speculord owners to keep up with the maintenance of such a house requires.
Accordingly allowing council to maintain a character overlay in certain localities seems sensible.
There are bits in most cities, San Fan a good example. Otherwise your proposing wiping out all heritage in Parnell, Herne Bay, Grey Lynn, Newmarket, Grafton, Ponsonby,St Mary's Bay, Freemans Bay and parts of Kingsland.
While bits of that are underway already, just can't see all of it being wiped out. Hense a blend of both.
Higher density will happen over time if it is allowed. The land values force it to happen. Examples such as lifestyle block size sections around auckland get built up in most cases. You have probably seen old homes in major CBDs that sit next to a high rise simply because they didn't want to sell up and they got built around and now too small to do anything with.
Why not give the market total free reign then, if the market is so wonderful. Productive soils near Pukekohe? Who cares, if the market says housing offers a better return then let it go for it!
Pristine coastal environments? Up for grabs!
Rural land remote from urban centres and employment that requires a shit load more driving and roads No probs!
The market and the cost of housing is all that matters in this world.
sarc on
Now your talking!
Your argument seems to full of things that could go wrong but probably won’t. Kind of like a communist country trying to imagine a world with fully stocked supermarkets, they may find that scary too. People will build near jobs because that is the most economical thing to do.
And I’m not saying nothing can be protected, but let’s make sure there is a good reason other than “because the current residents like it this way and voted in councillor x”.
So what is worth protecting? It’s a value judgement right. It’s not a black and white science. And that’s perhaps where you are coming from. The value judgement that protecting things like special character has, perhaps somewhat uncritically and without proper contestation, come out over the value judgement of having more density in Central Auckland.
I don't know enough about housing policy to make an informed comment here (check the username, after all). I can see some positives, I can see some negatives, I'll leave it at that lest I paint a target on my back.
What interests me more in all the discussion of density is how many people actually want to live somewhere with higher density?
If I look across my entire friend group where there is home ownership (early 30s, either DINKs or young families) my wife and I are the only ones out of about a dozen who immediately come to mind who made a deliberate choice to buy a higher-density townhouse ... let alone a high-rise or multi-dwelling building. Apart from us, the only people I know with townhouses are investors who rent them out (every other townhouse in our row is rented out) or you get the occasional downsizing boomer like our neighbours over the road who sold up a big place and live off the difference.
Everybody else has chosen to spend similar money and go out to the satellite towns like Lincoln, Rolleston, or Goon and enjoy a bigger house, a garden, more space in the neighbourhood and so on. Yeah they all whinge from time to time about the traffic on the morning commute - while yours truly gets to work in 10 minutes on the bike - but none of them want to move central and sacrifice space for a smaller property.
I completely see the societal advantages of density with respect to reducing encroachment on productive land, facilitating enough demand for public transport and so on - but is there an element of "the customer is always right, even when he's wrong" if people actively go out of their way to buy further afield.
Good observations.
A common thread running through them is that its is going to take a couple of generations (40 years?) before density is anything like as bad as the doomsdayers are predicting. And it will take at least a generation before before younger people value living close to the good amenities that come with higher densities.
I spent 10+ years working in large financial centres around the world and always lived in apartments and loved them. I'd suggest NZ's town planning is based on a situation that existed 20 years ago. I've seen the future, so to speak.
Alas, National's policy here is a mess that'll slow our catch-up to other cities to a crawl.
Yep. No long-term national vision. Just a game of populism and formulating ideas on the fly.
Watched the Q&A interview. Bishop says that the ideal h'hold income to house price is 3-4x, similar to Texas. He then goes on to say that the bubble cannot crash because it will cause financial instability.
Sounds not much different to Princess Xindy. Saying all the right things but can't deal with the negatives.
Boy Wonder interviewer is dreadful as well.
I thought Jack did well.
Didn't lose his cool. Kept asking questions where the answers were obvious but let Bishop sound completely out of his depth as he squirmed to answer them. Not quite a train wreck for Bishop but pretty damn close.
I feel sorry for Bishop & Nicola - both are having to deny common sense and look foolish because their boss answered a question when he should have deferred. Luxon is completely out of his depth in politics. (Likewise Jacinda was way out of her economic depth when she said "no CGT on her watch". She too should have deferred!)
They have flipped flopped before they have even got in power.
Bishop said the reason for reversing tax deductibility was because of the principle that only profits should be taxed, when asked if that meant gains on housing should be taxed he said oh no, I mean our principles only apply when it means they support our rich donors, of course there will be no capital gains tax.
Worse National leader in living memory, he just stormed further ahead of Mueller and Collins.
Chris Bishop...said house prices should be roughly 4 times the median household income √
I acknowledge that housing got out of control under the last National Government, but here's the thing: it's worse now,” he said √
But nothing in this 'new' announcement is going to change the status quo one iota. It's all been crafted to do absolutely nothing. Each Council will do a bit of this and a bit of that to suit their next electoral cycle, and stasis will set in. So we will be left with the only option that politicians; Chris Bishop doesn't want ;
"but NZ couldn’t have a price crash to get there." √
We've tried anything else but that, and here we are. Now even the RBNZ has left us to the devices of The Market. So The Crash, that is so avoidable and that no one wants, it will have to be.
I don’t mind Nationals changes. The build 3 anywhere would create more density in the outer suburbs, the opposite of what is needed
I’d like it if they forced a high density circular zone around the first 20% of the city’s land centred at the CBD. So as the city expands outwards this high density zone gets bigger too. Auckland council need to be forced to zone the most obvious area as high density as they are too corrupt to do it themselves.
I don’t mind the substance of it either. As you know I was always against the MDRS, one of the reasons being what you mentioned. I thought you were a fan of it.
But it’s making a mockery of a bipartisan agreement, one that was initiated by National. and an awful lot of public and private money has already been sunk into it.
The residential development sector will slump even more thanks to this. So the Nats will have even more of an economic mess, thanks to their own initiative, if they are elected.
No it won’t because in most cases the MDRS has no legal effect yet, so advantage can not yet be taken of them. It’s not until the hearing panel’s decision is released that the rules have any effect, in most cases. At least in Auckland, could be different elsewhere. And because of the government’s extension a decision is unlikely till late 2024 at the earliest. So there is nothing to take advantage of before the election.
Until this announcement it wasn’t a matter of ‘if’, it was a matter if ‘when’.
Now it is a matter of both if and when. So huge uncertainty.
But I think that’s a gross oversimplification. Enabling more high density development does not necessarily equal more housing at more affordable prices, or at least not necessarily significantly more affordable. Surely there comes a point where more than enough potential development and density is enabled. I don’t know what that point is, but I suspect MDRS + NPS UD does more than enough. Surely there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of enabled development potential.
None of this, and all the other strains on our lifestyle (social and hard infrastructure) would ever be an issue without one of the highest net population increases in the OECD, principally via net migration. And yet, there has not been any debate about why NZ needs more people and whether there is any evidence that this has improved the quality of life of the average incumbent resident over the past 20 years. It seems almost a given amongst government, council, the media that we are taking more people into the country and that is good - why?
Councils preparing their 30 year plans:
"Right! Let's pretend we'll allocate no new land for any businesses ... so they'll be few new jobs ... so we'll need few new houses .... Job done."
On a more serious note, Council's already have to provide these growth plans to central government. Central government, as far as I can tell, stamp them and put them into a filing cabinet never to be seen again.
So what the NP is talking about with their 30 year plan is basically something that is already in place. What's different is they say they're going to enforce it. A Tui moment if there ever was. No central government has done this ever.
And when Bishop said on Q&A this morning that if Council's didn't re-zone then central government would step in and do it. Now a law allowing central government to do this does not exist and it'll take years before there is one that does. Local governments will fight them tooth and nail.
It appears that NP policy is going to 'tax' or demand 'development contributions' from the owners of land who are selling greenfield sites so the ratepayer/taxpayer doesn't have to cough up for so much for infrastructure.
Now that policy is going to go down like a cup of cold sick with their land banking supporters. Will that policy survive? Not a chance!
And before anyone asks why….
Lots of developers have been putting plans on hold so they can take advantage of the MDRS when it comes through. The MDRS means that much development that is currently unfeasible would become feasible.
Plans were already put up in the air with the extension Auckland Council got to confirm the changes. And now here is an even bigger layer of uncertainty
Smaller developers, most likely. Most of the larger developers are looking at apartment buildings and the NPS-UD is still looking assured.
As an aside, in Auckland's THaB zone there are height limits but Council can use their 'discretion' to allow greater heights so long as immediate neighbors don't raise too much of a fuss over the 'assurances' the developers have given them.
Plenty of bigger developers do lots of terrace housing. Apartments are very hit and miss in terms of feasibility.
Some of the mid to bigger players are really struggling with making them work. Some quite big players in the apartments space are teetering. I can’t name names.
That Q+A interview was seriously the most awful performance I've seen from any politician for a while. It was clear CB knows bugger all about land use planning - and given Luxon didn't front the slot - the only reason for that can be he is clueless as well.
This idea of a 30 year growth strategy "or else we'll do it for you" - sheesh, it's work council's have already done!
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-byl…
https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/council/council-documents/strategies-and-p…
And additionally, all the councils that were required to implement MDRS legislation (aside from CHCH) have already written their plan changes and are going through the submissions process now. To tell them now that was all a waste of time is exactly the type of thing that frustrates local authorities. Central government treats them like a plaything. The costs associated with this work (drawing up the associated plan change) is ginormous. Talk about a wasted effort - the councils that followed the legal requirement ought to send their planning department's bill (lots of consultancy work in there too) to National if they get elected.
And meantime, AC can't even maintain and manage a flood sluice gate properly;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/why-the-onehunga-sluice-gates-didnt-open
Actually greenfield developers won't be happy!
CB said on Q&A that they'll be charged 'development contributions' when their land is sold for development. (He was squirming, big time, at this point describing how this would work and trailed off saying it had been done overseas - which it has - but the land owners generally got right royally screwed when they thought they'd be millionaires. This part of the policy will not survive. Not a chance!)
Good in what way? I was involved in the Kāpiti one - a nightmare for the planning department - and a whole lot of controversy;
https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/your-council/forms-documents/district-p…
In a district with serious storm water/flooding and groundwater problems as it is.
Puts the acid on those councils to think seriously about different housing options.
With the problems you mention would you prefer that no further development is possible. Thats attempting to hold back the tide, pardon the pun. With increasing population esp immigration then we have to face reality sometime, didnt you immigrate here yourself
Homes need building, people have a right to buy and live in homes
The council had just reviewed the entire district plan - and that only become operative in 2021. Plenty of precinct planning in it that catered for medium density around town centers. They had it covered, is my point. Didn't need the cost of this ill-thought out legislation. And that it was ill-thought out is the very reason National is backing down.
Our population is not increasing - unless you add in immigration - and nothing binds us to do that.
Not only does Chris Bishop not get it, but neither do you or others that are commenting on the '30 years.'
But what he is trying to explain is having at least 30 years of growth worth of land available at any one time for a developer to choose from on which to start the development process today. This is meant to be the equivalent of the Texas land use policy model where the land you can't use is zoned out, and then anything else is available to develop.
This system gives the potential for all future development land to be available now for a developer to choose from. but only gets developed at market demand. IE the market demand allows the developer to gauge what and how much of all the land available can be developed now, and the council is not involved at all in this process, other than to process the consents against the already agreed land use policy.
This is completely different from having councils projecting the next 30 years' worth of growth and then drip-feeding into the market, always too late for the 'now' demand.
Where the 30 years comes from re the Texas land use policy was someone somewhere said, 'What is the zoned equivalent of having enough NOW supply? And someone came up with the number, 30 years worth. But they are not the same equivalent as what Texas land use policy is and this is why Bishops' plan will fail and will require further intervention.
The Texas model says all land is available unless zoned out, and the NZ model says all land is not available unless zoned in. The NZ model makes it easy to landbank and is very regulatory heavy, does not allow developers to respond to the market to meet it in real-time, and thus for the majority of the time demand is not met and hence prices can obtain monopoly pricing.
All the shift in policy will achieve is from worse to bad, rather than from good to better.
The Texas model says all land is available unless zoned out, and the NZ model says all land is not available unless zoned in.
It's a really good way to explain the distinction. And I agree in many cases today, land earmarked for future development remains rurally zoned in the meantime. However, if the owner of that land flagged as future development residential is keen to subdivide now - you will find that a private plan change application will be granted. And if not applied for in the interim, the likelihood is with the next district plan review, the zoning may change.
But many landholders of that marginal land are happy to wait/hold off subdivision for whatever the reason (e.g., waiting for the kids to grow up and leave the home/farm). And you can't blanketly change rural zoned property in a district to residential unless the landowner is willing - because as soon as you go to residential zoning the policies associated with rural land-use cease (e.g., the pig farmer can no longer pig farm).
It's a matter of reverse sensitivity occurring.
I don't know how they get around these matters in Texas. It would be interesting. From the Houston perspective my understanding is that most of the massive lateral growth around that city has been on publicly owned swamp land - hence the massive flooding problems and the city being up for the costs of a whole lot more mitigation in that regard.
Private plan changes are hardly ever given and if given take years or a decade or more. Adding huge unnecessary costs and hardly in a time frame to meet demand. Plus because only a certain small number are granted to a very small number of developers then the price is monopolized.
The whole point as you say, is why change the zoning for a present demand when the owners do not want the zoning changed now? It's best to zone out what should not be built on, and then leave it up to the individual owners of all the rest of the land to decide what they want to do with it when they and the market agree.
And the reverse sensitivity is not an issue because developers have so much potential land to choose from and can buy it at the rural price they can either/or buy where there will be less chance of reverse sensitivity or use some of the land a reserve/parks buffer land. And any user still has to comply with health and safety environmental regs regardless of whether they have neighbours or not.
Such is the shortage of residential land in NZ housing was developed right around the Rosedale wastewater treatment plant on Aucklands North Shore and developers commonly develop and sell housing under high voltage power pylons, although no developer or politician would ever live there themselves.
Houston is the same land type as Christchurch, ie reclaimed swamp land.
It's best to zone out what should be built on, and then leave it up to the individual owners of all the rest of the land to decide what they want to do with it when they and the market agree.
I assume you mean "zone out what should not be built on for residential urban development". If this is the argument, I assume you are meaning we need to determine what rural and rural residential land should not be built on. What kind of criteria would you use to determine what gets zoned out (i.e., what then must remain rural and/or rural residential)?
I'm not sure that private plan changes are all that difficult to get. A council can do one of four things with a PPC application. One of those tracks is to adopt the plan change as their own and take over the process for the developer - and if the subject land is designated future residential, then an easy way to remove that cost barrier for a landowner, is to mandate the requirement that councils in all cases of such designated land must adopt the change and take over the process;
When it receives a request for a plan change, a council must decide whether to adopt a plan change, accept it as a private plan change, convert it to a resource consent, or reject it.
https://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/node/581
I know of many, many private plan changes that have been successful in the time that I've been working in the industry. Google it - you'll find plenty. Here's a recent one;
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/474336/lincoln-residents-appeal-ove…
Yes, I meant zone out and have made the changes.
Plan changes take years even if you get them and in the example you give the residents have appealed. Look how long and costly it took Sleephead to get approval for just north of Hamilton, and then Wintons issue https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/kainga-ora-sued-accused-of-misusing…. There is no certainty.
I've done plan changes, and they are/were easy when you are dealing with councils that are pro-growth but they are so far behind on present infrastructure requirements and don't know how to organize new, and don't want to lose control of their command and control ability, they are stuck for answers.
The Govt. has already identified classes of land to protect, so rule those out completely. But the way we organize it then it's not fixed, and what was once protected for good reason is now, for example, a wetland that can be drained just because it is adjacent to the council's next sewer connection. If the exclusions are worth anything then they should be excluded from development in perpetuity, not at the future discretion of some bureaucrat.
There obviously needs to be some thought go into this, as it would be easy to go if everything is protected and you have to apply for exemptions, which is really what we do now.
Obvious protections are elite soils and environmentally sensitive lands which can be applied to the likes of rural areas in don't plant exotic forests on unstable hill country. Also, present and future transport corridors, allow for road widening and straightening over time. Central Govt. should be able to look 100-plus years into the future and make these designations, that are permanent. Past Govt. has actually sold off transport widen corridors to allow housing to be built on them only to have future generations pay to buy them back and demolish the houses.
Once they have done this there is would huge amounts of land available that would be a lot harder for landbankers to monopolize which would make buying land a lot more affordable.
Well. Nats can for sure count on the REA vote;
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/132086947/investor-will-sell-fourth-pr…
Poor thing, maybe we should start a give a little page.
Pity there are no comments on the article, what is presumably supposed to be a puff piece for national, may turn out to highlight the need for Labour's changes. Would of been interesting to see people's comments.
Wait, so the plan National started and trumpeted on about that Labour picked up, worked on together so it was bipartisan, so could stand any change in government... is now being called stupid by National who want to make it "optional" or something by each council? Or suburb? What a planning nightmare they have become, which used to be Labours job.
Yep. Nats have destroyed, over the past few weeks, any prospect of getting my vote. Which is very much up for grabs. No credibility and same old same old. Flip flopping but ultimately flipping back towards landlords and their greenfield development and road building mates.
So it’s likely to be TOP for me unless Greens can lose some of their nuttier elements (unlikely)
I am far from a Megan Woods fan, but she’s right here on the uncertainty this will create for the development sector:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/govt-open-to-changing-housing-de…
No chance of national limiting council rates increases like ozzzy then? Nah No chance that National will fix health then? Nah. Even though experts have said 65 is affordable for super national still wants to change it? Yeah.
Will never vote national again.
Will never vote Labour again.
Will probably never vote ACT
Massive house building by the state, for not only state housing but also homes for FHBs. You know, like the old state house building programs.
Most of the government’s costs for the FHB homes can be recouped once sold, there’s simply a big upfront investment.
Take away the profit margin and the homes are automatically 20-30% cheaper.
This would also avoid the boom/bust cycles in construction and provide more industry certainty.
We are now faced with the rather ironic situation that a National government - supposedly pro-development - will be stymying a potential recovery in the residential construction sector in mid to late 2024.
The uncertainty created by this will already make things worse, and they will be even worse if the Nats win the election.
They are useless. Labour have got the controversial policies across the line for them. They just had to sit back and let them do their thing and focus on other priorities. Instead they are hellbent on undoing some of the best stuff Labour have done and no ideas about anything else. Looks like their rich donors have given them a list of stuff that annoys them and National are hopping and jumping like idiots. They should not be allowed to call themselves National, they should be called bought by big donors.
Please for the love of good can we get a decent centre-right party anytime soon?
I claim no expertise, but have we not already lost too much good quality horticultural/agricultural land to housing? We will surely regret that in time.
I go through Pokeno occasionally and could understand it if most of the people who live there could work in the vicinity. It could then be a proper community, but almost all of them still work in Auckland and have to drive there. I find it bizarre.
All i know is that when the grandkids visit they bring their cricket bats,bikes and soccer balls and enjoy themselves on my large section which is fully fenced.Their parents won't take them to their local park as too many lawless and unsavoury people freequent the park so my backyard is a safe haven.
Long live the large section.
That's a pretty sad state of affairs where you live mate. I remember going to the park as a kid and my parents didn't even need to come along with me. I crossed busy roads on my own to play rounders and I was only 7 years old. So what you are saying you now need to convert your back yard to a prison yard exercise area ?
Heh, well I'd invite you to come along to Queen Elizabeth Park in Masterton one day. Sure, there's kids enjoying themselves at the Skate Park. If you ignore the bogan losers wearing a cap under their hood boosting it at 60k + down the driveway separating the skate park and the rest of the park. Or the mob of a dozen or so 10 - 12 year olds scuffing their shoes and on the hunt for the next 8 year old to shake down, running to the media because the cops took their picture.
What election policies (changes to current settings) if announced would keep you here?
I'm interested in that lots of NZers like you, see Oz as a better option - is it mainly the wage difference over there? Or are their tax settings better? Or is inflation better there? Or is housing more affordable?
Not that I'm saying Oz isn't a good place to live - the better weather alone is certainly a big plus!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.