OPINIONPoliticsMarch 15, 2024

Housing wins the war

Wellington editor

The War for Wellington is over, and there is one overwhelming winner: housing.

There is no other way of putting it. The new Wellington District Plan is the biggest, fattest W in the history of the pro-housing movement in this country. For the Yimbys, the New City, the progressives, the urbanists, a City for People, for anyone who wants to own a townhouse or apartment in Wellington, this is an enormous, unprecedented victory.

In the stroke of a pen (and a six-hour meeting with many tedious amendment votes), Wellington has moved from the most restrictive housing market in New Zealand to the most permissive.

The Auckland Unitary Plan in 2016 kicked off an enormous boom of housing development across our largest city. It enabled tens of thousands of new townhouses and apartments, doubling the rate of construction and reducing the costs of rent in real terms compared to the rest of the country.

The new Wellington District Plan is more significant and more ambitious than the AUP. It allows denser buildings, more townhouses and more buildings on each section of land. These new rules will allow Wellington to finally become the city it already thinks it is: urbane, inclusive, progressive and vibrant. This is the greatest urbanist achievement New Zealand has ever seen.

There were 26 proposed amendments on Thursday, and the Yimbys won every single one of them. Even watching from inside the room, it felt unbelievable, almost impossible. Wellington is a city that has been dominated for decades by the Old Town, a faction of powerful, wealthy residents who will do anything to prevent density and stop any change to the neighbourhoods they hold so dear.

The room where it happened (Photo: Joel MacManus)

There’s actually very little to analyse here. The meeting wasn’t subtle. It wasn’t complex. The Labour, Green and pro-housing independent councillors romped home. The independent hearings panel’s recommendations were so anti-housing they inspired a backlash, giving progressive councillors political cover to push for even denser housing than would have previously been possible. It was an overwhelmingly one-sided affair. But there are a few points that are worth a deeper dive.

There are two big obvious wins for housing. The first is the inner-city character areas, which have been reduced from 306 hectares to 85 hectares. This is huge. This is the most desirable, most density-friendly land in the city. The reason these suburbs have “character” is because they are old. They’re old because they’re the closest places to the city, so they were the first places anyone built houses. The character protections effectively prevented any development whatsoever from occurring in these suburbs. Thanks to Thursday’s votes, this land will be able to become apartments for thousands of new residents (which will also mean huge value uplift for current homeowners, whose land has suddenly become more developer-friendly).

The second huge win is for the northern suburbs. By defining the Johnsonville rail line as “rapid transit”, the council has enabled thousands of new homes to be built along the train line. Anything within a walking catchment of a rapid transit station must automatically be zoned for six-storey apartments. A successful amendment by Nīkau Wi Neera took it even further, expanding the rapid transit walking catchment from five minutes to 10 minutes. Multiplied across nine train stations on the Johnsonville and Kāpiti lines, this adds up to enormous potential for new housing.

There are countless smaller wins. The Gordon Wilson flats will no longer be a heritage-protected blight, staring over The Terrace menacingly like a diseased predator. Finally, (finally!), Victoria University of Wellington will be free to demolish the building and do something better with that land. Hopefully, that means more housing for students. But even if it means offices and research facilities, it’s better than an abandoned relic kept empty as a historic tribute to how the city used to build low-cost social housing in the centre of town.

‘Hutt Valley, Kāpiti, down to the south coast. Our Wellington coverage is powered by members.’

Joel MacManus
— Wellington editor

There is one bit that could be slightly overlooked, but I think it is possibly the most important change of the entire process. Rebecca Matthews successfully passed an amendment to remove front and side yard setbacks. This goes much further than the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, or the Medium Density Residential Standards. Put simply, it means people building new townhouses or apartments don’t have to leave a gap between the house and the front or side of a section (as is common with UK-style terraced housing). That means more of the land can be used for housing. In many cases, it actually means larger backyards, because you don’t have to leave an ugly, weird dark alleyway along the side of the flat. It’s a small difference on every individual property, but it will add up enormously across the scale of the city. It will mean larger townhouses, or more townhouses per section, both of which are a win for density.

Rebecca Matthews and Phil Twyford: War for Wellington MVPs (Photos: Supplied, Getty Images)

There are two MVPs in this District Plan process who deserve lifelong props for their contribution to Wellington:

Rebecca Matthews. The second-term Labour councillor from the Onslow-Western ward represents and defines the Yimby movement more than any other elected official in New Zealand. From the moment she set foot in the political area, housing has been her first, second and third priority. She deserves credit for her ability to build relationships and find allies across political lines. Her amendments to reduce character areas and expand the centre city walking catchment passed with a surprisingly large majority, thanks to her backroom dealing. This is what has made the Yimby movement so successful: they’re willing to work across the aisle, and see the final outcome as the most important goal, rather than some impossible idea of ideological purity. Matthews has managed to hold both positions. She is beloved by the young, activist left, and still pragmatic enough to win broad support. In the general election, Labour will eventually need a replacement for Greg O’Connor in Ōhāriu, and they could do a lot worse than recruiting Matthews.
Phil Twyford. The former minister for housing is now relegated to deep in the backbenches of opposition, but his contribution to housing policy might prove to be the most significant legacy of the sixth Labour government. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the Medium Density Residential Standards are both incredibly boring-sounding pieces of legislation with long, forgettable names, but the impact they will have on the future of New Zealand cities is indescribable. The NPS-UD was meant to merely set a minimum standard for councils to meet, but both the council and the IHP showed reluctance (and possibly fear) to go above what the law required. It’s scary to imagine what kind of District Plan Wellington would have right now if Twyford had never passed the NPS-UD. There would certainly be some form of upzoning, but surely nothing anywhere near what was achieved on Thursday.

Now that Wellington City Council has approved an ambitious, progressive, pro-housing District Plan, it will go to housing minister Chris Bishop for final approval. The law puts this decision solely in Bishop’s hands – he does not need the approval of cabinet, it is purely his decision. As an MP based in the Wellington region, who has talked a big game about the need for more density and bigger cities, this is his chance to finally prove he can deliver the urbanist vision he has promised.

The next challenge will be the follow-up. Zoning allows housing, the next step is making it happen. The council needs to make sure it can deal with developers, treat them fairly, and encourage them to invest in this city. If they make that happen, Wellington will be the best urban centre in Aotearoa, without question.

Wellington is no longer dying. We’re so back. This moment, this one meeting in a boring white conference room on The Terrace, has changed the course of this city forever. For the first time in a long time, there’s reason to have hope for Wellington.

Keep going!

a red toned chris bishop with the logos of foest and bird and greenpeace and WWf behind him

Chris Bishop’s fast-track bill has garnered disapproval from many environmental groups Image: Tina Tiller

PoliticsMarch 14, 2024

We can’t find the environmental group that was extensively consulted on the fast-track consenting bill

Hayden Donnell

Contributing writer

Chris Bishop’s fast-track bill has garnered disapproval from many environmental groups Image: Tina Tiller

Chris Bishop told reporters he’d carried out extensive engagement with the environmental sector on his fast-track consenting bill. Hayden Donnell went in search of an environmental group that felt it had been consulted extensively.

As the government pushed ahead on its plans for a fast-track consenting regime, Greenpeace planted a giant gushing vat of cow diarrhoea on parliament’s forecourt. With the manure burbling away behind her, its spokesperson Gen Toop told Newshub the backdrop was a taste of what’s about to come for the whole country. “We’ve brought the pollution problem here to parliament because they’re about to make it worse with this fast-track consenting bill,” she said.

The proposed fast-track regime gives three ministers – Chris Bishop, Shane Jones and Simeon Brown – the power to skirt existing environmental checks and balances to approve projects deemed to be of national or regional significance. Those could include coal mines, fish farms, seabed mining or wind turbines. Even putting aside the fountain of faeces at parliament, the reaction from conservation groups couldn’t be described as positive. They’ve called the legislation a “disaster for the environment”, a “war on nature”, and “another nail in the coffin for our wildlife”, while also on a side note arguing that it’s catastrophic for our democracy.

At times it’s seemed like anyone who’s had a passing association with a plant has put out a press release opposing the changes. Given that, it was a surprise to see Bishop tell assembled reporters at the Basin Reserve last week there had been “extensive engagement” with the environmental movement in the lead-up to the legislation passing its first reading at parliament on March 7.

The Greenpeace poo vat (Image: Newshub screenshot)

Which were these environmental groups that had sat down with National and New Zealand First to wrestle over the knotty question of how to protect the life-sustaining beauty of our natural world while also waving through new coal mines without recourse to the Environment Court?

Not Forest and Bird. Its conservation advocacy manager Richard Capie said the organisation received a letter on the bill from Bishop on January 31 telling them to submit their feedback by February 12. A meeting with environment ministry officials was cancelled and took place only after the submission deadline. “We weren’t consulted,” said Forest and Bird chief executive Nicola Toki on X. “We got a letter and 12 days to respond and a cancelled meeting though.”

At least they got a letter. “I can confirm that Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay did not receive any correspondence in relation to this,” said that organisation’s general manager Debbie Monahan.

Neither did Birds NZ. “No and no,” said its president Bruce McKinlay, after being asked if his organisation had been consulted on the bill and whether he knew anyone else who had.

Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research hadn’t so much as thought about fast-track consenting. “We haven’t had any discussions or interactions on this so, please cross us off your list,” it said in a statement.

The NZ Fish and Game Council hadn’t been consulted either.

Paul Winton, the founder of the 1Point5 Project and a trustee of All Aboard Aotearoa, said he hadn’t talked to Bishop or any officials about the bill. If he had, he would have expressed concerns about the potential for ministers to expedite roads that lock in emissions or projects that harm waterways. “It looks to me like an undemocratic process,” he said. “It’s ghastly.”

The NZ Botanical Society was similarly incommunicado with both the environment ministry and Bishop. “No, he hasn’t talked to us (and I suspect not anyone else either!),” its statement said.

The Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust had taken the lack of consultation on the legislation in its stride. It responded with trademark reserve. “Thank you for your email. Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust was not consulted on this matter,” said its administrator Lisa Chrisstoffels.

Only one environmental agency seemed fine with its level of engagement on the fast-track consenting bill – the one funded by the government. “DOC provided advice to the government on the fast track consenting bill, and the minister of conservation was one of the key ministers who developed the policy and the bill,” said its deputy general policy manager Ruth Isaac.

Greenpeace chief executive Russel Norman was not quite as sober and reflective. “I just thought it was deeply cynical,” he said, regarding Bishop’s comments at the Basin. “Because it was plainly a lie. Completely untrue. A perfunctory letter with a vague description of what was being proposed is obviously not extensive consultation at all, and he knows that as well as I do.”

WWF-New Zealand’s chief executive Kayla Kingdon-Bebb also took issue with Bishop’s claims to have engaged with the sector extensively. “‘Extensive engagement’ would be the most significant overstatement in the history of policy development,” she said. “It’s a garbage policy and it’s been a garbage process. This government should be ashamed of itself.”

Environmental Defence Society chief executive Gary Taylor was similarly unimpressed. “I haven’t spoken to Bishop, and that really pisses me off because of course all of this fast-track stuff gestated with asymmetrical influence. He just had development interest in his ear – nobody representing the public interest in our natural world,” he said.

Consultation with Greenpeace and the Environmental Defence Society followed the same procedure as it did for Forest and Bird. They were all sent a letter inviting them to give written feedback on the bill, but hadn’t met with officials or received a comprehensive summary of its contents by the February 12 deadline. WWF says it never received a letter.

Despite Taylor’s concern the environmental movement had been given less opportunity to deliver feedback on the bill than development interests, a statement from Bishop said that had been standard procedure across multiple sectors.

“I sent letters in January to ENGOs, industry groups, local government mayors and chairs, and iwi Māori regarding the government’s proposed fast-track bill.

Referring to a meeting held with environment ministry officials in mid February – after the feedback deadline had passed – Bishop said, “Officials met with the Environmental Defence Society, Forest and Bird, WWF NZ, and Greenpeace. These meetings were held by teams and feedback from them was passed on to ministers throughout the process.”

He said those groups could also submit on the bill at select committee stage.

Representatives from other directly affected industries described a similar process. Energy Resources Aotearoa, which represents oil and gas interests, received the same pro-forma letter as Forest and Bird and others, and were given a February deadline for feedback.

Its chief executive John Carnegie said the agency was pleased with the bill despite the condensed process. “Everyone has issues but we were pretty happy with it provided there were sufficient checks and balances,” he said. He disagreed with the environmental sector’s claim that checks and balances in the bill were inadequate, saying “we take a different perspective.”

A perfunctory consultation period isn’t ideal for anyone. But it helps take the edge off if you get the outcome you want.

‘If you value The Spinoff and the perspectives we share, support our work by donating today.’

Anna Rawhiti-Connell
— Senior writer