UPZONING

A new law will encourage us to build up, not out. Will it ruin the quality of life for city residents? Liz McDonald reports. Will it spoil the Garden City?

Upzoning is a new term for Kiwis to get to grips with. It describes a fast-tracked law taking effect in the main cities next year – aimed at slowing sprawl and boosting affordability by building up instead of out.

The bill will allow construction of three homes, three storeys high, on urban sections without resource consent. Housing can cover half the site, set back

1 metre from side boundaries and

2.5m from the front.

Critics say that in the rush to solve problems the Government, with the support of the National Party, is creating new ones.

In Christchurch the upzoning has been called a threat to the tree cover the city is already losing to developers’ chainsaws.

Research shows Christchurch has less tree canopy than Auckland or Wellington.

Other objections to the bill have included the effect on the character of neighbourhoods, and on people’s sunshine, light and privacy.

Ashley Campbell is one city resident who fears the new law could spoil her little piece of outdoor space. Campbell lives in one of a row of townhouses in the suburb of Linwood.

She and her neighbours fear losing both summer and winter sunshine, perhaps threatening their mental health if tall, buildings go up close to their boundaries. They would be unable to grow fruit and vegetables in their small gardens, she said.

Campbell and her neighbours made a submission on the bill to Parliament’s environment select committee this week.

They strongly reject the ‘‘nimby’’ tag. As residents of a ‘‘low-income suburb’’, they are not protecting high property values, and as townhouse owners they support intensification, she said.

Campbell said she has admired a multi-home development nearby, going up ‘‘nicely spaced and landscaped’’. ‘‘I totally support what they [the Government] are trying to do. We know that more homes are needed. I have lived overseas and know what intensified housing is.

‘‘But what is the value in increasing housing if it is harming other people?’’

The Englefield Residents Association, representing an area just east of the four avenues, also made a submission on trees.

‘‘Clear felling the trees and gardens of Christchurch and other established gardens in the other large cities in New Zealand is not an environmentally sound solution, considering the latest research on global warming,’’ the group’s submission said.

The Tree Council said the new laws would cause loss of habitat that would ‘‘impact our biodiversity’’, affect residents’ health, and ‘‘create unliveable cities’’. Most of the 1100-plus individuals or groups giving feedback supported intensified housing.

Many agreed with the need to reduce dependence on cars, to build affordable housing and to protect fertile land around cities from urban sprawl.

But there was wide concern at unintended effects of the changes and at the speed they are being introduced.

David Hattam, an urban designer at Christchurch City Council who was submitting on his own behalf, said he supports widespread medium-density housing but worries about ‘‘the unmanaged impacts of intensification’’. With no restrictions on site size in the new law, developers could build up to 15 homes on a 750-square-metre section by first subdividing it into five sites, he says.

‘‘While the bill would permit three houses on a site . . . it would also provide a framework for much larger developments to proceed with very little management of effects.’’

Hattam also opposed allowing high walls 1m from a boundary.

‘‘This bill is a dramatic change to the amount of protection afforded to neighbours, which will have very real impacts on people’s living conditions,’’ he said.

‘Blunt approach’

Christchurch has had several years of intensified housing development in designated areas.

Building consents for attached homes now exceed those for freestanding houses.

Dismay at this month’s felling of native to¯ tara on a Cambridge Tce building site the Crown sold to Fletcher Living mirrored reaction now common in inner suburbs.

The city has 1200 protected trees on private land and that protection will not change.

The council is now forming a tree policy to try to stem tree loss. It also supports a bid to turn Christchurch into a national park city. The council’s existing rules allow felling to make way for homes but require replanting.

Developers must cover at least a tenth of their site with trees and shrubs, including at least one tree per 250sqm.

Mayor Lianne Dalziel’s submission on the bill labelled it ‘‘a blunt, one-size-fits-all approach’’. She called the lack of consultation with local government and residents ‘‘incredibly disappointing’’.

Dalziel called for the bill’s geographic approach to be clarified, allowing density in targeted areas only, and enabling local decision-making.

It should include minimum planting requirements, acknowledge wellbeing and include robust design standards, she said.

‘‘The trouble with a one-sizefits-all approach is that topography is not taken into account. Apart from the Port Hills, we are a low-lying coastal city.

‘‘Our flat environment means we don’t have the natural gullies that exist in both Auckland and Wellington. The extent of tree canopy within those cities is naturally greater than ours.’’

The new law would ‘‘likely lead to a further reduction’’ in Christchurch’s tree canopy, Dalziel’s submission said.

‘‘Councils cannot provide the optimum tree canopy coverage solely on public land – 75 per cent of O¯ tautahi Christchurch’s tree canopy cover surveyed in 2015 was located on privately owned land.’’

The council also wants a minimum density of 15 homes per hectare for subdivisions, in line with the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

Like Christchurch, Selwyn council supports the aims of the bill but mayor Sam Broughton said in his submission it ‘‘may not lead to high-quality homes’’ in its current form.

Selwyn council wants to see bigger setbacks, lowered heights near boundaries, more light and sun on outdoor spaces, and minimum planting rules. Broughton said the changes could ‘‘lead to perverse outcomes’’, such as housing intensification away from public transport or community infrastructure.

He said the new laws would affect the council’s plan change process for rezoning land for housing, which currently has 18 applications covering 12,000 new homes. ‘‘The withdrawal of these plan changes will have the unintended consequence of stalling supply of land for residential development in specific cases – an outcome at odds with the intent of the bill.’’

Iwi ‘ignored’

Among those unhappy with the speed of the law change was Te Ru¯ nanga o Nga¯ i Tahu.

The bill was introduced to Parliament on October 19, with submissions open until November 16. It is expected to be passed by Christmas.

The ru¯ nanga’s group head of strategic relations, Rakihia Tau, told the select committee the bill ‘‘had been progressed without consultation with iwi or hapu¯ ’’.

The ru¯ nanga had not been able to consult adequately with its marae communities and follow its governance processes to make a full response, Tau’s submission said.

Tau said the runanga was now seeking engagement with ministers or officials.

The Christchurch Civic Trust – set up to guard both the city’s natural and built heritage – also criticised the lack of time for wellconsidered feedback. Its submission described the bill as ‘‘an extremely undemocratic trampling on rights and expectations of citizens and territorial authorities alike’’, and the impending loss of local voice.

‘‘Centrally imposed regulations do not allow future developments to be sensitive to what built environment exists . . .

The soul of one city is not identical to that of others.’’

Enabling choice

The bill, brought forward by 12 months, is part of a series of amendments to the Resource Management Act. It cuts some of the red tape the act introduced. In its own words, it ‘‘seeks to

rapidly accelerate the supply of housing where the demand for housing is high’’ and encourage low-carbon cities. Housing Minister Megan Woods described the bill as ‘‘enabling legislation’’, leaving the market to determine what was built. Already there was ‘‘a generational shift’’ in housing preferences, she said.

‘‘We want people to have choice. This is about making sure we are not stopping construction of housing that is more affordable for people.’’

She defended the fast timeframe of the new legislation.

‘‘We have an affordability crisis. We know that this type of denser housing, by its nature, is more affordable with shared walls and so on.’’

Woods said there were ‘‘some really good issues raised at the select committee’’.

‘‘Some pretty consistent things came through that we are certainly open to – the landscaping is something the committee is aware of.’’

She said while the law changes do not require landscaping or tree planting, they restrict building to half the site.

Councils could play their part by planting street trees, she said.

Woods agreed the bill was ‘‘not as clear as it should be’’ about site sizes and said officials would propose ways of addressing this.

‘‘I am sure this will be something the environment committee looks at very carefully.’’

She said ministers were ‘‘happy to sit down with iwi’’ but that was unlikely to happen before the law change.

The environment select committee will report back to Parliament on December 2, after which the bill will have its second and third readings.

‘‘This bill . . . will have very real impacts on people’s living conditions.’’ David Hattam

Urban designer