The big day has arrived, and Wellington editor Joel MacManus is in the room as council votes on the city’s District Plan.
Today, Wellington city councillors introduced series of amendments to the District Plan, rewriting it line-by-line. Any councillor could introduce an amendment, and each one was voted on individually. Housing minister Chris Bishop will have the final say on either accepting a council amendment or keeping the relevant panel recommendation.
The full list of amendments can be read here.
I’ve been here in Wellington City Council chambers on The Terrace, live blogging every moment as it happened, with some handy notes for those catching up. To watch along, the meeting is being livestreamed below.
Wellington City Council officially passes an ambitious new District Plan
And with that, it is finally over. Wellington City Council has voted to accept all of today’s amendments, and officially passed a new District Plan.
The new District Plan enables tens of thousands of new homes. It allows apartments and townhouses across the city in suburbs where they were previously banned. It’s a pathway to a far denser, more affordable city.
Councillor Nīkau Wi Neera called it “a fantastic day for housing in Wellington.”
“We have ensured a generation of working people, students, families, retirees, anyone who is in desperate need of housing in the city will be able to achieve,” he said.
Geordie Rogers said the plan set the way for “a city where everyone can thrive, where we have enough housing, that puts people and planet first.”
John Apanowicz, said the changes would make a big difference for construction. “For us to make it as smooth as possible for people to be able to build is quite a significant thing. That’s what people have been saying for a long time, ‘please make it easier for us to build’.”
Ben McNulty thanked Wellingtonians for being engaged in the process. “One thing that’s fantastic about Wellington is that we all give an s-word about what happens.” (yes, he actually said “s-word”).
Sarah Free, who has taken a cautiously conservative approach to density, seemed to soften her stance slightly in the final minutes of the meeting. “There’s genuine tension between people who want to move forward quickly,and those who have concern about where that might lead us,” she said. However, she accepted Wellington needed to evolve. “Cities, if they don’t grow, they die. And if they don’t change, they wither.”
Some councillors on the right took some parting swings at a plan they were clearly upset with.
Diane Calvert attacked the left of the council as “upzoning zealots with no real experience of building strong communities.” She accused her colleagues of “trying to discredit the panel and undermine the democratic process.”
“If we go against the independent panel and the views of the community, I’m not sure where this council will end up,” she said.
Tony Randle said the council had a “red-green agenda towards density, and we’ve seen a lot of dense amendments,” he said. “If the intention of planners is to make an affordable city, then they have failed, and we have failed.
He said Wellington needed more greenfield developments, not more density. “I’m still waiting for the penny to drop, that density is not working in Wellington. Until we get greenfields into the mix, we will never have affordable housing in Wellington.”
The District Plan will now be sent to housing minister Chris Bishop for approval. He must sign off on any amendments the council has made to the IHP recommendations. He has clearly signalled he was unhappy with many of the recommendations, so will be expected to approve most or all of the council’s changes.
Council rejects inclusionary zoning amendment
Wellington city council voted down an amendment from Iona Pannett to introduce rules for inclusionary zoning – requiring new developments to make a financial contribution towards affordable homes, or requiring a minimum proportion of new homes built to be sold below an affordability threshold.
“Wealthy developers could make a useful contribution to living in a great city where people can afford more houses. There is not clear evidence that just building more decreases prices. I can tell you that people living in earthquake-prone buildings are not finding high-density apartments very affordable right now,” Pannett said.
Rebecca Matthews opposed inclusionary zoning because it would disincentivise new builds. “We are penalising the thing we want second-most, new housing, in favour of the thing we want most, new affordable housing,” she said.
Ben McNulty said it was “an awesome idea on the surface” but wouldn’t work, because it would turn away property developers. “It disadvantages Wellington, it’s a tax on Wellington city that developers in Porirua and Lower Hutt won’t have to pay.”
Sarah Free opposed the idea because it was “tinkering around the edges, and could have unintended consequences.”
The vote failed 1-16, with only Pannett voting in favour.
Pannett, a former Green councillor who was de-selected by the party in 2022, has been on the losing side of most votes today. She launched a jab at her former party colleagues. “This has not been a particularly Green plan, because Greens don’t generally like growth, and this has been all about growth,” she said.
Council votes to remove heritage protections for the Gordon Wilson flats
Wellington City Council has voted to remove heritage protections from the Gordon Wilson flats, a former social housing complex which has sat empty for years. This opens up the opportunity for the building’s owner, Victoria University of Wellington, to demolish the flats and redevelop the site.
The council also voted to remove protections for my favourite heritage building – a rusty, leaking gas tank in Miramar.
Councillor Ben McNulty put forward the amendment to remove heritage buildings. Each building was votes on separately. The results are here:
Gordon Wilson Flats – Passed 16-2
Miramar Gas Tank – Passed 18-0
Emeny House – Passed 13-5
Kahn House – Passed 12-5
Olympus Apartments – Passed 12-6
Wharenui Apartments – Passed 15-3
Robert Stout building – Passed 13-5
Primitive Methodist Church – Passed 12-6
Johnsonville Masonic Hall – Passed 13-5
Star of the Sea Chapel – Passed 12-6
We are asking for your help to continue our coverage of Wellington
The War for Wellington has been a six-week editorial project for The Spinoff focused on the city’s District Plan and the chance to rewrite the rulebook on housing. Every single one of the 32 stories to date from myself and our contributors has been free for all to read. Many have involved hours poring over hundreds of pages of dense documentation. We are incredibly grateful to Spinoff Members for enabling this work; thank you. Throughout today, I’m live-blogging the meeting that could change the future of housing in Wellington. This week, we end this project but remain dedicated to continuing our coverage of Wellington. To do so, we are asking for reader help. Please, if you are able to support The Spinoff, donate or become a member today.
Debate turns to heritage buildings
The debate has now turned to heritage buildings. Ben McNulty has introduced an amendment to remove a number of old buildings from the heritage list.
He’s put forward every example of a heritage building where the owner of a building submitted to the District Plan asking for its listing to be removed.
There are ten buildings named in his amendment: The Gordon Wilson Flats, the Miramar Gas Tank, Emeny House, Khan House, Olympus Apartments, Wharenui Apartments, Robert Stout Building, Primitive Methodist Church, Johnsonville Masonic Hall, and the Star of the Sea Chapel.
Iona Pannett, who once lived in the Gordon Wilson flats, said the building was sunny, soundproof, and had a great “1950s vibe”. Nicola Young had a slightly different view: “I’d love to help take a sledgehammer through it.”
Sarah Free said she had done some soul-searching over the decision. “I’ve agonised over the Gordon Wilson flats, but the cruel reality is: it’s not working. You can say we’re losing housing, but there’s nothing in there at the moment.”
Council votes to define the Johnsonville train line as mass rapid transit
Wellington city council has voted to define the Johnsonville train line as “mass rapid transit” (a term that literally means train). This opens up much more high density zoning in Wellington’s northern suburbs.
The change means six-story apartments will be allowed within walking distance of all train stations along the line: Crofton Downs, Ngaio, Awarua Street, Simla Crescent, Box Hill, Khandallah and Raroa.
The amendment, introduced by Nīkau Wi Neera, added even more high-density zoning by changing the size of the MRT walking catchments from five minutes to ten minutes. That change will apply to all stations on the Johnsonville line and stations on the Kāpiti line that fall within WCC boundaries (Takapu Road, Redwood and Linden).
The vote passed 10-8. Liz Kelly’s flipped vote proved to be decisive.
John Apanowicz, Tim Brown, Diane Calvert, Ray Chung, Sarah Free, Iona Pannett, Tony Randle, and Nicola Young were the eight votes against.
Pouiwi Liz Kelly flips her position on Johnsonville train line
Mana whenua representative Liz Kelly, who voted against defining the Johnsonville train line as mass rapid transit in 2022, just announced her intention to flip her vote.
“I do support affordable housing so I’m going to jump around here,” she said. She credited Nīkau Wi Neera for changing her view, and said the walking catchments would allow iwi organisations to build more high density houses in the area.
However, several councillors stuck to theirs guns, arguing the train line was not rapid transit.
“It’s a toy rail line, in comparison to the main trunk line,” said Diane Calvert.
“To me it was clear cut, it did not meet the definition (of mass rapid transit),” Sarah Free said
Ray Chung and Tony Randle both said the train line didn’t have enough frequency or capacity to be rapid transit, and there were no plans to upgrade.
Rebecca Matthews gave a fiery response. Defining the train line as mass rapid transit “doesn’t mean it’s a bullet train. It means you can upzone along the route,” she said.
“What I’m concerned about is the circular argument: You can’t have housing because you don’t have transport, you can’t have transport because you don’t have people because you don’t have housing. There won’t be investment in the Johnsonville train line because there isn’t the population to sustain them, because we don’t allow the housing.”
Nīkau Wi Neera introduces amendment for Johnsonville train line
Nīkau Wi Neera has introduced his amendments to define the Johnsonville train line as mass rapid transit. He also wants to expand the walkable catchment for high density zoning around all train stations on the Johnsonville and Kāpiti lines from 5 minutes to 10 minutes.
“We know the north is growing, we know Johnsonville is growing, and we know there is demand in the tens of thousands for new housing,” he said. “I think it is very reasonable to note that many of the people who hop on that train with their briefcases and lanyards are doing so on foot, and it is by foot that they will return to their home.”
Council staff have recommended that a five minute walking catchment is more appropriate.
Council votes to review Kilbirnie walking catchment
The council voted unanimously in favour of Sarah Free’s amendment to send the Kilbirnie walking catchment back to public consultation.
The vote originally came in 16-2. After a moment of confusion, the whole room laughed after realising Sarah Free and Ray Chung were the two votes against – both of them had accidentally pressed the wrong button, and were given the chance to change their votes.
Next up: Reviewing Kilbirnie’s high density area
The meeting is back. Next on the agenda is an amendment by Sarah Free to remove and review the walking catchment around Kilbirnie.
There’s a bit of a backstory here. Kilbirnie is a Metropolitan Centre, so is required by law to zone for six-storey apartments within a walking distance of the town centre.
But for a bunch of complex reasons about resilience and ground conditions, the council originally didn’t put a high density walking catchment around Kilbirnie. It was added late in the IHP process, which means there was no public consultation.
Free isn’t necessarily opposed to the walking catchment, but wanted it to go back out for a community consultation.”It’s a walkable catchment around a fairly generous interpretation of a town centre. I would like that to be tested by the community,” Free said.
What’s for lunch? A Spinoff investigation
After slashing character areas, councillors have paused for lunch. They’ve slithered away to a secret room, where they are presumably either toasting their success or licking their wounds.
We don’t know where they went. They’re hiding from their constituents. Most importantly: We don’t know what they’re eating for lunch.
This secrecy is deeply anti-democratic, and I will not stand for it. As a serious investigative reporter, I will not rest until I find out what food they are stuffing their faces with and bring you the TRUTH.
UPDATE:
I figured it out, thanks to my deep network of sources and spies. This photo of the council’s lunch was provided by an unnamed person whose identity I will protect with my life.
It looks like sausage rolls, savoury scones, salad, samosas, and some other delightful snacks.
Council votes to remove front and side yard setback requirements
Wellington city council has voted to remove setback requirements for all new developments.
This is a technical point, but a very important one for townhouses and apartments. It means developers can build houses right up to the edge of a section, rather than being required to leave a gap before the fence.
This is common in UK-style terraced houses. It means more of the section can be used for housing, and potentially means more homes can be built on each piece of land.
The vote passed 11-6.
Council votes to expand centre city walking catchment
Wellington city councillors voted to expand the centre city walking catchment back to 15 minutes, rejecting the IHP recommendations.
Everything within a 15 minute walk of the centre city zone will become a high density residential zone, allowing 22m height limits.
The vote passed 11-6.
The council also upzoned three specific streets where the IHP had carved out height limit exceptions: Hay St in Oriental Bay, and Moir and Hania St in Mount Victoria.
Council votes to shrink character areas
Wellington city council has voted to reject the IHP’s recommendations for characters, and shrink them back to 85 hectares, in line with the council’s original proposal.
The IHP wanted to expand character areas to 206 hectares. For context, character areas currently cover 306 hectares, or 88% of all inner city residential land.
The vote passed 11-6, with Tim Brown, Sarah Free, Ray Chung, Nicola Young, Iona Pannett, and Tony Randle opposed.
Nureddin Abdurahman to the Newtown Residents’ Association: ‘You got this one wrong’.
Nureddin Abdurahman, a Labour councillor who represents Newtown in the Southern Ward, has had to juggle conflicting interests from community groups in his areas.
Abdurahman campaigned on more housing, but the Newtown Residents’ Association has strongly opposed upzoning and changes to character areas.
He defended Newtown as a welcoming, diverse, and supportive community. But he had a direct message for the residents’ association:
“To my communities, especially in Newtown: I know some of you think you’re on the right side. I know you believe everyone is welcome. We are the most diverse suburb in New Zealand. I know you are just not rich people who are opposing the IHP recommendations [out of self-interest], but you got this one wrong, according to me.”
“Even as a councillor who earns good income, I still struggle to afford a house in the ward I represent,” he said. “We know all our communities are a winner today. I want our community to be united.”
Iona Pannett and Nicola Young defend character areas
Iona Pannett, the former Green councillor who is now independent, launched an emotive defense of character areas and opposing developments in the inner suburbs.
“I don’t want luxury housing in the inner city, I want it to be affordable,” she said.
“Developing character areas won’t make housing more affordable for artists, key workers, and young people. Market value is not determined solely by how a bit of land should be zoned. The reason that land is valuable is because it has a stunning view over the harbour and gets lots of sun.”
“These are diverse areas, and we shouldn’t gentrify it more.. The more houses we get, the more people we shove out to other places in the city, which I consider unacceptable.”
Conservative councillor Nicola Young made a similar point. “Wellington’s character housing, the little houses and wooden villas that cling to the hills, are a defining feature of our landscape.
She opposed the upzoning, suggesting it wouldn’t do anything to improve housing supply. “They’re all on very small pieces of land, and it’s expensive land. In most places, you’d have to buy several houses and bowl them before you go in.”
She said Mount Victoria was “the liquore allsort suburb, because it is so ethnically diverse…. I live on Elizabeth St, it’s one of the narrowest streets. In a small block, we have Italians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks and me.
Labour councillor Ben McNulty blew up in response, almost yelling into the microphone.
“Is it that zoning won’t lead to housing, in which case, why do you care? Or is it that it will lead to housing, and you just don’t like that housing?” he said. “You said you didn’t want to see those areas gentrified – they’re already gentrified. They’re the most gentrified part of the city.”
Chung accused of reading speech written by heritage advocate
Councillor Nīkau Wī Neera just introduced a point of order accusing Ray Chung of introducing outside information.
Chung appeared to be reading his speech from an email. A lot of it seemed almost identical to this opinion piece written by Historic Places Wellington chair Felicity Wong.
The District Plan requires councillors to follow strict rules to not consider any information that wasn’t introduced as part of the hearings process.
After a brief pause to allow staff to consider the point of order, mayor Tory Whanau allowed Chung’s speech to stand.
Ray Chung lays out conservative opposition to amendments
There was one notable omission in the list of amendments we saw earlier: none of them were proposed by conservative councillors.
Councillor Ray Chung, in his speech, just laid out why that is: he is pushing the argument that the IHP should be considered as impartial and objective, with reasonable decisions. None of the conservatives want to introduce amendments, because it would go against the argument that the IHP report is accurate.
“I believe the IHP is the only forum where different competing views were considered. When they looked at upzoning and character, they weighed them all objectively. I think they were the experts, they considered everything objectively and came up with their decisions,” Chung said.
He pointed out that the IHP still recommended upzoning (as required by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development) and there is still a slight reduction of character areas.
“I believe they are not anti-upzoning at all, they balance it out and give their perspective,” he said.
Council staff push back against three amendments
We’ve just been given a new report showing which of the 26 amendments the council staff agree with and which they don’t, in their independent role as reporting officers.
There is no actual requirement for councillors to follow council staff recommendations, but their views do tend to be quite persuasive.
The amendments the council staff do not recommend are:
- Shrinking character areas back to 85 hectares (Council staff recommended a minor expansion, though not quite as large as the IHP recommendation).
- Removing minimum front or side yard setback requirements (Council staff want a side yard setback of 1m in all zones, and a 1.5m front yard setback in medium density zones).
- The walking catchment around the Johnsonville rail line (Council staff do recommend defining the train line as mass rapid transit, but want the walking catchment around each station to be 5 minutes, not 10 minutes).
Rebecca Matthews: “I used to be normal”
Rebecca Matthews is the most ardent pro-housing councillor, and the strict rules preventing her from speaking publicly about the District Plan for the past two months have clearly been getting to her.
Presenting her amendments to the council, she was finally allowed to speak her mind, and it all came spilling out in a strongly-worded plea for density, and an attack on the IHP.
“I was not always the housing and zoning tragic you see before me today. Local government has done that to me. I used to be normal,” she began.
“I’m moving a series of amendments because I believe better things are possible,” she said. “Better things than the IHP recommendations are possible.”
She then listed a number of IHP findings she disagreed with:
“Upzoning does make a difference to housing supply. Housing supply has an impact on affordability. Urban form has a greater impact on emissions than demolishing some old houses… Our inner suburbs have been locked down into single unit dwellings by swathes of character protections. Our inner suburbs can and should be home to more people in better housing.”
“The IHP were provided with good evidence on all these matters. For a range of reasons, they decided to set this evidence aside or ignored it. It is crucial that this council does not do the same.”
“It’s a cliche now, but it is a city, not a museum,” she concluded.
Matthews’ amendments will be the first ones put to a vote. They are:
Keep Adelaide Road in the Centre City Zone
Revert back to a 15 minute walking catchment from the centre city
Shrink character areas back to 85 hectares
Add Hay Street, Oriental Bay to the high density zone
Reject lower height limits in Moir and Hania St, Mount Victoria
Remove minimum front or side yard setback requirements
Tory Whanau disagrees with the IHP report, and buys a new house
Mayor Tory Whanau introduced the District Plan paper with a speech directly attacking some of the IHP findings and announcing her intention to support a denser city.
“We need to be planning for the next generation. A generation that will bring their talent, ideas and add to the rich history, culture and economy of Wellington. That’s why many of us are here around the table, to make our city something to be proud of but also creating a new city for them.”
“We can either sprawl in the far away suburbs, or we can prioritise building new homes and apartments in the city.”
“There are parts of the IHP recommendations I disagree with. I do not agree that zoning for more housing will not enable more houses to be built.”
“As we go through these amendments, I will be considering how to get more density. We need balance here, and I believe it is people who give the city its character.”
As she concluded her speech, Whanau revealed she is settling on a new home today, a three-storey townhouse in Mount Cook. “I’m privileged to get that, but we are here because most people aren’t,” she said.
The amendments are out (but you already knew that)
The full list of amendments being voted on in today’s meeting has just been officially released and handed out to all councillors and media. But if you’re a Spinoff reader, you already knew everything in the report – we published a leaked list of the amendments this morning.
There are 26 amendments in total, which would rewrite some of the biggest and most controversial parts of the IHP recommendations.
The council’s chief planner, Liam Hodgetts, is presenting the report and paying tribute to his team of staff who contributed throughout the years-long process of rewriting the city’s housing rules.
“I wish you good luck in striking the right balance for the future of the city. There are going to be very few votes in your time as elected members that will have such a massive and lasting consequence on the city,” he told councillors.
And we are off….. but not quite yet
It’s all go! It’s 9:30am and the meeting that will decide the future of housing in Wellington is underway.
Mayor Tory Whanau kicked off by acknowledging there are some heated passions around this issue, and issues a stern warning to councillors and people in the gallery to be respectful, or she will have them removed.
Before they get into the District Plan issues, councillors first have to deal with a few minor water services issues, so we are probably a few minutes away from the housing stuff.
The agenda for today
It’s going to be a long day for councillors, for me, and for all Wellingtonians. The meeting agenda alone is 4,265 pages long, and the council is probably going to take quite a few pauses for legal advice, so this meeting could go on for a while.
The full list of amendments to be voted on today was leaked and can be read here.
They include such proposals as:
-
Designate the Johnsonville train line as mass rapid transit
This would allow high-density zoning within a ten minutes walk of all the train stations along the line: Crofton Downs, Ngaio, Awarua Street, Simla Crescent, Box Hill, Khandallah and Raroa.
- Shrink character areas back to 85 hectares
This is a major change and the character areas back in line with the originally proposed District Plan. The IHP wanted to expand character areas to 206 hectares. For context, character areas currently cover 306 hectares, or 88% of all inner city residential land.
-
Remove the heritage listings for all the following buildings: The Gordon Wilson Flats, the Miramar Gas Tank, Emeny House, Khan House, Olympus Apartments, Wharenui Apartments, Robert Stout Building, Primitive Methodist Church, Johnsonville Masonic Hall, Star of the Sea Chapel.
All these buildings were put forward on the grounds that the heritage values aren’t sufficient enough to balance out the potential downsides of listing them. Most of the buildings are earthquake prone or damaged. Some, like the Gas Tank, and just ugly and getting in the way of new developments. Each building will be voted on separately.
And many more.
What you need to know
We’ve covered a lot in the past six weeks as the Independent Hearings Panel released its recommendations for the future of Wellington, specifically around housing and density. It would be impossible to catch up if you’re only tuning in now, but here’s a few explainers that might be helpful.
A simple guide to Wellington’s District Plan and why you should care about it
The first recommendations for the future of Wellington’s housing are in, and they’re shit
How much Wellington’s housing panel shrank density, in four maps
The story of Wellington’s housing panel
