'Kick in the guts': Govt knocks back Christchurch council housing plans
The mayor of Christchurch says a government knock-back on its three-year battle to create a custom carve-out of national housing intensification rules feels like a "kick in the guts", but others are welcoming the certainty of the move.
On Friday, Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop issued a final decision on 17 of 20 recommendations the city council had referred after rejecting recommendations from an independent panel on the council's plan to shape a bespoke Christchurch response to national housing density policy).
Minister Bishop rejected the bulk of the council's proposals.
In 2021, the then-government released its National Policy Statement on Urban Development, a plan to ramp up housing intensification across most urban areas but focused on the five high growth centres of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch, amid bi-partisan support for the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, though the National Party would later withdraw its backing.
The bill contained Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), which detail what development can occur without the need for resource consent, public notification and consultation in the areas identified as most in need of housing intensification.
ADVERTISEMENT
Those rules were intended to apply across all residential zones in those identified cities, unless "qualifying matters" made intensification inappropriate.
The decisions come into effect immediately and cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. (Source: rnz.co.nz)
In 2022, the council voted to reject the standards, despite warnings that a commissioner could be appointed.
Instead, the council began several years of consultation, submissions and hearings on Plan Change 14 - its proposed changes to the district plan that would give effect to the Medium Density Residential Standards, but in a way, it claimed better acknowledged the character and context of the city.
The council temporarily halted the process following the last election, and was later granted an extension until the end of this year on some aspects of the plan change.
Minister Bishop declined a further extension request last month.
The council's stance culminated in an Independent Hearing Panel (IHP), which reported back in the middle of last year.
ADVERTISEMENT
The council accepted the majority of the IHP's recommendations, which were incorporated into the district plan. But it rejected various aspects of the proposed plan, making twenty counter-recommendations that went to the Minister.
The minister announced on Friday he had rejected 14 of the council's recommendations, accepted three and deferred his decision on three more.
Minister for Resource Management Act Reform Chris Bishop has rejected the bulk of the council's proposals. (Source: rnz.co.nz)
The decision means some parts of the city will be zoned higher-density housing and taller buildings, while the council will not be allowed to use several different "qualifying matters" to refuse consents even in high density zones - most controversially, one that hinged on the impediment of sunlight and proposed the Garden City should get an exemption because its southern location meant sunlight angles differ.
Bishop's announcement locks in changes for areas in and around the CBD, and the "town centres" of Riccarton, Hornby and Linwood, which will be zoned high density residential. Taller buildings will be allowed within 600 metres of shopping areas in some suburbs - 32m (around ten storeys high) for the Hornby shopping area, 14m for high density residential zones surrounding the shopping area, 22m (around six storeys) for Linwood's town centre, and 14m for high density residential zones around it.
The council's bids to create qualifying matters on the basis of sunlight access, recession planes (a line or plane which limits how close a building can be to a property boundary), or by location - such as 'the City Spine' (major transport routes) or Riccarton Bush - also failed. Nor did the minster accept areas around Peer Street in Ilam or the Papanui War Memorial Avenues should be excluded from density rules or allowed special consideration.
The council proposals the minister did accept were Local Centre Intensification Precinct - intensification around eight of the city's commercial centres, including Barrington, Prestons and Wigram; increasing the building height overlay for the former stock yards site on Deans Avenue (a prime spot adjacent to Hagley Park, currently used as car parking for the Christchurch Hospital shuttle service) to up to 36m; and allowing high density residential zoning for Milton Street (the site of the Milton St substation, which Fletchers plans to build 80 homes on).
ADVERTISEMENT
All other council alternative recommendations were rejected in favour of the hearing panel recommendations.
The minister has deferred decision-making for the heritage listing for Daresbury - a historic home in Fendalton; Antonio Hall - a derelict historic home on Riccarton Rd; and Piko Character Area - a Riccarton residential neighbourhood made up of many original state houses from the 1930s - until the council decided on the underlying zoning.
Antonio Hall after a fire in 2019. (Source: rnz.co.nz)
"In putting these decisions forward to the government, we obviously wanted to get all of our alternative recommendations approved. So to only have three of them get the tick is a kick in the guts," mayor Phil Mauger said.
"This plan change has been a huge undertaking for our city, and we've said right the way through that we want to get the best outcome we possibly can. This doesn't feel like the best outcome.
"To that end, we'll keep working hard as a council, and there are still major decisions yet to be made when it comes to housing density and planning across much of Christchurch, so watch this space."
New Zealand has one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the OECD.
ADVERTISEMENT
Urbanist collective Greater Ōtautahi welcomed the minister's decision.
Chairperson M Grace-Stent said the decision finally brought some certainty after years of delays, decision making, submissions and hearing panels.
"What we're most excited about is that Ōtautahi Christchurch is set up for the future, it has certainty around where it can grow and where it can continue to develop in the future."
The decision will not mean apartment buildings spring up overnight, they said.
"It's still going to be a slow developing process, just as our cities always continually change. This is just another step."
The city also needed to turn its attention to improving public transport.
"Ōtautahi Christchurch definitely needs a reevaluation of its transport system. We've been calling for the introduction of mass rapid transport across the city to support and facilitate the kind of growth and development that needs to happen, and to make sure that everyone has a choice about how they're getting around the city and aren't forced to just pick cars."
ADVERTISEMENT
Grace-Stent said the debate touched on ideas embedded in the national psyche about how and where New Zealanders live.
They said the quarter-acre dream of a stand alone house on a large section is unsustainable and doesn't not always produce greater social outcomes.
"Not everyone wants to live the exact same lifestyle - allowing more housing to be built allows people to make that choice for themselves. So if people want to be living on 1/4 acre block, they're allowed to, and if people want to be living in an apartment close to their friends and amenities and where they work, they also have that choice."
They acknowledged that some medium and high-density housing is not built to high standards but said some of that was due to limitations of the current zoning process, which can mean the lowest bidder builds on these sites.
"This is just the first step into assuring that everyone has a home that is liveable and that works for them, and is good quality. There also needs to be changes throughout the way that we are think about housing and building houses across the country," Grace-Stent said.
The decisions, which come into effect immediately, are final and cannot be appealed to the Environment Court.
The council has until the end of the year to decide on density rules for the rest of the city.
It was unable to confirm by deadline how much it had spent fighting the density rules, but had budgeted for $7 million between 2021 and the middle of this year.
By Keiller MacDuff of rnz.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
15 hours ago
- 1News
Seymour denounces Destiny Church protest demands as 'un-Kiwi'
Acting Prime Minister David Seymour has denounced today's Destiny Church protest in downtown Auckland. Hundreds have marched from Aotea Square down Queen St, in what the church billed as a rally "in defence of faith, flag and family". Destiny Church said the march was to take "a bold public stand for Christian values, Kiwi identity and the future of this nation". Church leader Brian Tamaki claimed "uncontrolled immigration" in the United Kingdom had led to spikes in crime and a collapse in British identity. Tamaki said the church was building a "Commonwealth crusade" to "reclaim Christian nations". ADVERTISEMENT Watch the Destiny Church protesters march through downtown Auckland on TVNZ+ At one point, flags – which an RNZ reporter said appeared to include rainbow flags and flags representing mainstream media – were set alight. Seymour said the church leader's messaging was "un-Kiwi". "What it means to be Kiwi is people come from all over the world, and so long as they come peacefully to build a better world, then they're welcome," he said. "Brian Tamaki's various attitudes have all sorts of problems, but at their heart they're un-Kiwi attitudes because they're intolerant and uninclusive. "What I take issue with is his attacks on other New Zealander's right to practice their faith just as he has a right to practice his." Protesters and counter-protesters at a Destiny Church rally in Auckland, 21 June 2025. (Source: ADVERTISEMENT Ahead of the march, Tamaki said church leaders had sent an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon calling for a reversal on a position that the country has no official religion. He said one demand included enforcing a policy of "no immigration without assimilation" – a phrase also chanted during the protest march. The acting prime minister said Destiny Church was free to criticise the Government. "Christianity has given a lot to New Zealand but some New Zealanders find faith in other teachings, and so long as they are committed to tolerance for all, then that's not a problem," he said. "I just want all New Zealanders to know, that if they come here in good faith to build a better society with tolerance of others then they are welcome here. "And Brian Tamaki certainly has no right to tell you otherwise." Protesters at a Destiny Church rally in Auckland, 21 June 2025 (Source: ADVERTISEMENT Fire and Emergency crews were called to the march after flags were set on fire. However rally goers then put the flames out with water and the arriving firefighters then left without taking action. Police were stationed at the protest, but said they did not make any arrests. The Destiny marchers were met by counterprotesters – an RNZ reporter said there were about 100 present at one stage – who were waving tino rangatiratanga flags and Palestine flags.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
Article – RNZ Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has agreed to work with his counterparts on the 30-year plan, but the discussion got heated. A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature – and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to 'start on a positive note' on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. 'I agree,' Bishop said. 'That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government.' The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. 'At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough,' he said, garnering an emphatic 'yeah' from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. 'You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place,' he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. 'We think some of the things you've done are stupid… what I would like to see is a commitment,' he said. 'There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response.' More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: 'I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point … we may not always agree. 'For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: 'We know where we're at with that.' Bishop: 'You sure?' McAnulty: 'Yes, I am actually… this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. 'This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other.' Bishop: 'Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid.' McAnulty: 'Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves.' Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and 'sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate'. McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. 'The point is to have… almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline,' Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster – a former Wellington mayor – said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. 'Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it – but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money,' he said. 'I'd rather they just do it.' 'Enough of those mandates for councils,' interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. 'We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing,' Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. 'Depends exactly what you're talking about,' Bishop said. 'I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact.' 'So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?' McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. 'Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. 'Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. 'It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'.' Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest – which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? 'You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening,' Bishop concluded – or seemed to. 'The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land.' 'Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords,' Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers – a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, 'because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates', but the agency was making 'good progress' and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract – whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities – with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: 'And the minister doesn't even know … that's very disappointing.' Bishop: 'Yes. So's your behaviour.' Utikere: 'No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive – that is our responsibility. 'It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget.' Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too – after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would – in turn – have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Government, Opposition Scrap Over Common Infrastructure Ground
A reference to $250,000 was corrected to $250 million in this story. Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has committed to working directly with the Opposition, when putting together the Government's response to the 30-year infrastructure plan due out next week. He says that co-operation comes on the proviso that infrastructure decisions are always political in nature - and it did not stop the discussion from repeatedly descending into a fingerpointing tit-for-tat over which government was to blame for what. Labour housing, infrastructure and public investment spokesperson Kieran McAnulty kicked off the scrutiny week select committee hearing on Thursday afternoon, making an effort to "start on a positive note" on how bipartisanship could work for infrastructure policy, suggesting that would provide more certainty to the sector. "I agree," Bishop said. "That's part of the reason why we campaigned on a 30-year national infrastructure plan being developed in government." The plan has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission since late 2023 and is due to be launched at Parliament next week, with the government required to respond within six months. Bishop said he planned a Parliamentary debate, so all the political parties' views could be included in that response, but McAnulty wanted more. "At the moment, frankly, the attitude of some ministers of bipartisanship is, 'We'll work with you, if you agree with us', and I don't think that's good enough," he said, garnering an emphatic "yeah" from Green MP Julie Anne Genter. Bishop said completely depoliticising infrastructure was not possible, which was to be expected in a democracy. "You know, if we all agreed, this would be a fairly boring place," he said. McAnulty agreed with an agreement to disagree. "We think some of the things you've done are stupid... what I would like to see is a commitment," he said. "There's an opportunity there to work with the other side to actually identify where there is broad agreement and include that in your response." More than just a debate, he wanted the response to include an explanation of which infrastructure projects the government and opposition parties agreed on. Bishop: "I'm happy to commit to that now. Just making the obvious point ... we may not always agree. "For example, you guys have got to figure out where you're at on PPPs, for example, because you've had about nine different positions. McAnulty: "We know where we're at with that." Bishop: "You sure?" McAnulty: "Yes, I am actually... this is one of the things that I'm actually trying to avoid, right, is that we can't help ourselves. "This is the game we're in. We talk about bipartisanship, but we also take every opportunity to have a crack at each other." Bishop: "Well, you just said some of the stuff we've done was stupid." McAnulty: "Exactly my point, we can't help ourselves." Bishop said parties could agree on a lot, when it came to infrastructure, and "sometimes there's a bit more heat than light in this debate". McAnulty said he did not think the public would know that. The minister pressed on, deferring to Infrastructure Commission chief executive Geoff Cooper to explain the projects expected across the country from about 110 organisations, including all but 14 of the country's councils. The result was a list showing investment worth $206 billion, broken down by region and sector, which Cooper said started to paint a much clearer picture of investment. "The point is to have... almost a single source of truth for what's in the pipeline," Bishop said. Committee chair Andy Foster - a former Wellington mayor - said the information should be included in councils' long-term plans and they should be contributing. Bishop had an easy solution. "Well, if they don't do it, we can just mandate that they do it - but I'd rather not, because that takes time and money," he said. "I'd rather they just do it." "Enough of those mandates for councils," interjected Labour local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere. "We make them do all sorts of things for the right reasons and this would be the same thing," Bishop responded. Clashes over cancellations While the first half hour was not entirely bonhomie, unicorns and rainbows, the verbal finger pointing was surely on show in the second half of Bishop's appearance. McAnulty asked if the minister accepted cancelling projects across successive governments had affected sector confidence. "Depends exactly what you're talking about," Bishop said. "I accept that, after 2017, the radical change in direction of the National Land Transport Plan at the time had a significant impact." "So you're willing to say that one government cancelled projects that had an effect, but you're not willing to concede that you guys cancelling projects has?" McAnulty responded. Bishop said it showed the limits of bipartisanship. "Our view was that they're the wrong projects for the country, he said. "Depends which one, but generally too expensive, not good value for money, in some cases undeliverable. "It was the right thing to do to say, 'You know what, we're actually just not going to proceed with that'." Genter said many council projects were also defunded under the coalition and the iReX ferry replacement could have been rescoped, rather than dumped. Predictably, this kicked off a four-minute cancellation-measuring contest - which government cancelled more projects? Who cancelled more projects that were already contracted? "You can have an intention to do something, it doesn't mean it will end up happening," Bishop concluded - or seemed to. "The last government lived in fiscal fantasy land." "Only because your government made a decision to give billions of dollars to landlords," Genter fired back. Foster was eager to move on, asking Bishop about whether Kāinga Ora had managed to bring social housing build costs down to the same level as private developers - a topic well traversed in the last scrutiny week in December. The minister did not have the latest numbers, "because this is not the vote Housing and Urban Development estimates", but the agency was making "good progress" and would report back on that publicly. He and Utikere then argued some more over the roughly $250 million allocated for cancellation of the ferries contract - whether that was part of Bishop's responsibilities - with Bishop saying it belonged to Rail Minister Winston Peters and Utikere saying, when they'd asked Peters, he'd referred it to Bishop. Utikere: "And the minister doesn't even know ... that's very disappointing." Bishop: "Yes. So's your behaviour." Utikere:"No, it's not actually, minister, my behaviour is about scrutinising the executive - that is our responsibility. "It is disappointing that you don't know the answer to just over a quarter of a billion dollars' worth of taxpayers money that has been set aside in your Budget." Foster stepped in again, suggesting Bishop's answer was that it was best for his ministerial staff to provide an answer and they did. Treasury deputy secretary Leilani Frew said negotiations for the ferry contract exit were still continuing, as well as wind-down costs. The discussion soon wound down too - after a series of patsy questions and a discussion about the causes of 15,000 fewer people being employed in construction. Bishop argued it was an expected side-effect of bringing down the official cash rate, which would - in turn - have the biggest effect on reinvigorating the sector, McAnulty argued housing could be an avenue for stimulating growth. In the end, the public got a commitment to bipartisanship. Whether it lasts remains to be seen, but investors watching this scrappy select committee may be hesitant to bet the house on it.
