Intensified housing for most of Christchurch a step closer after council vote

Intensified housing across most of Christchurch is a step closer, after the city council voted on Wednesday to accept a modified housing density plan.

Any rule changes are at least a year away, and will follow a series of submissions and hearings allowing the public to have a say.

The revised plan, allowing housing three or six storeys high across much of the city, has been put together by council staff. It comes after councillors’ rejection last year of a central Government directive that the main cities adopt its new housing intensification law.

Mayor Phil Mauger said they had “run out of road”, and the Government had given “a clear signal” that they had to make a decision.

READ MORE:
* Christchurch’s answer to Government’s housing density mandate makes almost half the city exempt
* Contentious cycleway work will continue, but the fight is not over, councillor warns
* Plans for housing intensification in Christchurch scaled back
* ‘I don’t think anyone is going to be happy ultimately’: New high-density plans for Auckland released

“This is not the final decision, it is the start of a public process,” he said.

Councillors voted 14 to 3 to notify the plan for consultation, with Crs Aaron Keown, Mark Peters and James Gough voting against.

Gough compared the decision to “swallowing a dead rat”.

Most councillors said they were torn in their vote, with several saying the plan was far from perfect, but they were left with no choice and it was time for the public to have a say.

Cr Mark Peters said Christchurch was being bullied by central Government, and Cr Tim Scandrett said he was “really disappointed in Wellington” but the council had little choice.

“I think it is D-Day for us and we must approve this,” Scandrett said.

The next step is public consultation. An independent hearings panel will then make a final recommendation for councillors to vote on in April 2024.

The vote followed presentations from residents and groups both supporting and opposing the changes. Several were from community groups in Hornby and Riccarton.

The adjusted plan has new recession plane rules more in line with Christchurch sun angles than the Goverment’s Auckland-based rules. Under the revised plan, some ground floor properties could still be without sun for three months of the year.

It permits development of three, three-storey homes per property in most of the city without a resource consent, but only if the site is within walkable access, or 1km, of public transport. It would also allow six-storey buildings within 600 metres of main shopping areas, and of four storeys near smaller shopping areas.

Buildings of up to 10 storeys (32 metres) and six stories (20m) would be allowed within 1.2 kilometres of the city centre.

About 68,000 residential properties across the city (out of a total of 154,455), including most hill and coastal areas, are exempt from the plan unless there is resource consent, for reasons including flooding or rockfall risks, or being too far from bus routes.

This means intensified development would be allowed on 56 per cent of sites.

Addressing councillors at Wednesday’s meeting, Government appointee John Hardie urged them to accept the staff’s revised plan. The Government had already granted the council an extension and could now step in with its original plan, he said.

“The place where people express these views is an independent hearing panel – you are delegating that responsibility to others.”

The council voted to write to Hardie outlining their views and concerns at notifying the new plan change, to assist him with his report to Government.

Cr Yani Johanson was opposed to the plan but voted in favour. He said evidence showed there was “nothing in this plan change would lead to any significant difference in housing affordability”.

“I am concerned that there hasn’t been an adequate social assessment of what is proposed … if we get intensification wrong, that will lead to poor outcomes in our community.”

Cr Keown said the dense cities admired overseas were old, and super-imposing density on cities designed for cars did not work.

Cr Celeste Donovan said they had “a responsibility to balance out concerns,” and future generations would inherit their decisions.

Cr Pauline Cotter agreed the housing intensification “will not lead to improved affordability”, and she worried about shading. However, she said the council was “between a rock and a hard place” and the risk of Government taking over was too great.

Cr Kelly Barber said as the plan would now go to a hearings panel, “everyone’s voice will be heard”.

Prior to the vote, Garth Wilson from the Central Riccarton Residents’ Association said property developers were “in a frenzy” as they waited for their chance to make more money.

Ross Gray, chair of the Christchurch Civic Trust, said they supported well-planned intensification, but only with green space and trees within walking distance.

Intensification needed to be managed as it reduced the amount of greenery, tree cover, and the amount of uncovered ground available to absorb rain and floodwaters.

“Let Christchurch be an example and be free of centrally-imposed restraints.”

Joscelyne Silcock said she was worried about losing her sunny backyard of her small home, and tall buildings shading people’s homes would hugely increase their heating bills.

Addington resident Finn Jackson said the voices of the poor, renters, and students and young people were being forgotten, and he wanted Christchurch to be a “smart, affordable, climate-friendly city”.

He said the city was beset by rising house prices and rising rents, and sought a “property-owning democracy”.

Harrison McEvoy said housing intensification created closer communities, and more demand for local amenities and business, and the patronage to support them.