The 16-strong City Council and Mayor Lianne Dalziel have lobbied to vote against initiating government legislation that would effectively allow the construction of up to three three-storey townhouses on sections across Christchurch without the consent of the funds.
Councilors will consider stamping the measures at a meeting on September 8, but they received an open letter by email last week from a group of 16 residents’ associations asking that the process at least delay it.
The star approached the 16 municipal councilors with their vision on housing intensification, 10 responded. Those who did not respond were the mayor, 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, voiced her concerns to a select committee last November before the legislation was passed, agreeing with the sentiment of residents’ associations.
“I will respond to them with advice we get about the legal ramifications of what they are proposing,” she said.
Any resistance seems futile as the government is able to enforce the new measures, a point emphasized by Jake McLellan.
He warned fellow city councilors not to jeopardize the ability to change the legislation by giving the government reason to apply defaults.
“The government has put in place a framework that will come into effect whether we like it or not,” he said.
“What we can do is basically apply it to Christchurch. Yes, the law is the law, but you can say, “Here are some special character areas that we think deserve a special dispensation.”
“It wouldn’t be a good idea not to vote for it, as it basically softens the government’s plan.”
Aaron Keown asked why some councilors might be against the policy. “There are some who are really into walking, cycling and public transport and yet don’t like to step up. Just a little word for the wise, one cannot exist without the other,’ he said.
“Intensification is definitely better for the environment, business, people’s time use and housing affordability. It just has to happen with neighbourhoods, not neighbourhoods.”
Other councilors contacted by The Star declined to reveal how they would vote.
Sara Templeton said urban intensification is essential for all cities in New Zealand to address housing affordability, climate change and protect productive soils.
“The reality is that we are required to implement the government’s guidance on this and if we don’t approve the current proposal, the defaults may apply,” she said.
“This could mean intensification happening all over the city without being able to rule out the qualifying things, such as natural disasters or character areas that we identified.”
The rest of the councilors who responded to The Star had issues with the government’s remedy.
“I would prefer planning rules in the CBD to be further relaxed to encourage higher-density development there, but residents have chosen to live in suburban areas, particularly as they don’t have a high-density lifestyle want. This is centralization that got out of hand,” says James Gough.
Sam MacDonald agreed: “This will destroy suburbs and it is counterintuitive to our goal of increasing the density and population of the CBD.”
Yani Johanson was “deeply concerned” about the loss of sunlight, privacy and amenities, such as trees and greenery, and disagreed that Christchurch should take the same measures as Auckland and Wellington.
“Christchurch already has a lot of land earmarked for housing, and enough capacity for higher density as a result of land use changes brought about after the earthquake,” he said.
“The affordability of housing dictates that we cannot deny the need for housing intensification. The main concern is how it will be implemented,” said Tim Scandrett, who was still considering how he would vote next month.
Mike Davidson didn’t think the government’s one-size-fits-all approach was appropriate.
“A more tailor-made solution developed with the municipality would have produced a better outcome for the city,” he said.
“Infill housing should be concentrated in areas with good public transport and walkable amenities. Increasing housing density must also be accompanied by better tree protection, more foliage and green spaces.”
Pauline Cotter said the legislation was appropriate around shopping centers with good transport links and the CBD, but should not be applied “carte blanche” in the city, especially when the council is trying to attract people to live in the CBD.
“I’m actually concerned that the housing market is being flooded and there are a lot of vacant small units where there used to be trees and gardens.”
Jimmy Chen echoed widespread fears.
“Residents living on small plots need special attention to avoid intensification that will destroy their amenities, access to light, sunlight and gardens,” he said.
- Have your say: What do you think of the new rules for home intensification? Email your opinion in 200 words or less to [email protected]