spinofflive
Wellington mayor Andy Foster, and housing in Wellington (Photo: RNZ/Getty Images; additional design Archi Banal)
Wellington mayor Andy Foster, and housing in Wellington (Photo: RNZ/Getty Images; additional design Archi Banal)

PoliticsJune 30, 2022

How one council meeting derailed Wellington’s housing densification plans

Wellington mayor Andy Foster, and housing in Wellington (Photo: RNZ/Getty Images; additional design Archi Banal)
Wellington mayor Andy Foster, and housing in Wellington (Photo: RNZ/Getty Images; additional design Archi Banal)

A year after a ‘bold’ step was made towards getting more affordable housing built in Wellington, a spanner has appeared in the works in the form of an 11th-hour amendment to the district plan by mayor Andy Foster.

In a six-and-a-half hour meeting last week, Wellington City Council approved its district plan, an enormous 1,281 page-document that sets rules for where dense housing can be built, guiding decision making on a wide range of long-term planning and environmental issues.

This comes almost exactly a year after the council agreed on its spatial plan, which reduced the number of protected “character” areas, allowing new houses to be more easily built in some parts of the central city. This was celebrated as a “bold”, “visionary” step in providing more housing for Wellington.

However, it also maintained height restrictions on buildings, limiting the number of tall buildings, and therefore the construction of dense housing – a move introduced because of concerns that “unlimited building heights could lead to irresponsible building developments”.

The 2021 spatial plan estimated 24,600 to 32,200 homes would be built by 2050, in a city where students and professionals alike regularly form long queues just to view properties. Although this was criticised as possibly being inadequate to fill the capital’s housing shortage, housing advocates largely saw it as a step in the right direction.

Photo: Getty Images; additional design Tina Tiller

But for anyone who’s a fan of building more affordable housing in the capital, it only got worse this year.

The recent district plan, finalised by the Council’s Planning and Environment Committee, was intended to build on the work started by the spatial plan.

Instead, “a very slim majority of councillors, a couple, changed their votes and undid a year’s worth of work, and probably millions of dollars’ worth” of planning, according to pro-density councillor Rebecca Matthews.

In particular, an 11th-hour amendment by mayor Andy Foster – who is yet to announce whether he is running for re-election this year – made two major last-minute changes that will likely lead to less high-density housing being built.

First, the walking catchment – the area around the city centre in which six-storey buildings are allowed to be built – was reduced from 15 minutes’ walking distance, the standard in most New Zealand cities, to 10 minutes. As a result, the city centre will see fewer tall apartment buildings and housing blocks built.

Councillor Teri O’Neill was strongly opposed to this change. “What we want is housing, and we thought we had an assurance of that through the spatial plan.”

Second, the amendment will directly reduce the density of housing in Wellington’s northern suburbs. Foster proposed that the Johnsonville train line  no longer be considered a “rapid transit line”, allowing buildings near the train line to be built at a height of fewer than six storeys. This is despite the areas near Johnsonville being among those that will experience the most growth, with many of the 74,500 new Wellingtonians in 2050 expected to live near the train line, according to the council’s own estimates.

Mayor Andy Foster’s last-minute amendment will directly reduce the density of housing in Wellington’s northern suburbs and the CBD.

Councillor Fleur Fitzsimmons was angered by the mayor’s proposals, arguing that “there will be less land available for density as a result of these decisions”.

Despite passionate opposition from pro-housing councillors, the two changes both passed narrowly, by eight votes to seven.

After a short break, councillors were told that the mayor’s reduction of density near the Johnsonville line was directly contrary to the national policy statement on urban development; in other words, that it was illegal. Although the anti-density amendment was reworded slightly, it may still be in breach of the law.

“What the mayor proposed was definitely illegal, but what we ended up with is possibly illegal,” explained Matthews, who voted against the amendments. “It’s anti-housing, but also just poor decision making.”

Clockwise from top left, Wellington City councillors Teri O’Neill, Rebecca Matthews, Iona Pannett and Fleur Fitzsimmons (Photos: Supplied)

One councillor who did support the mayor’s proposal was Planning and Environment Committee chair Iona Pannett. She had previously been supported by the Green Party but was voted out at a selection meeting in April over her support for heritage and character areas.

“The problem is that it’s been heritage versus housing, when actually you can have both,” argued Pannett, who will campaign for re-election as an independent in October.

Live Wellington convenor Jane O’Loughlin was disappointed that heritage and character areas weren’t expanded even further. “This [density] is much more than is required for the population increases we are expecting,” she said. “What this will result in is the inner-city suburbs losing their identity and becoming a hodgepodge of styles and sizes, with six-storey buildings sprouting up here and there.”

The district plan will now be sent to independent commissioners for analysis, while the public are able to make submissions on it next year.

With current prices and interest rates making it the worst time in 65 years to be a first-home buyer, and Wellington rents the highest in the country, things look bleak for anyone who doesn’t have a place of their own. The capital city’s local elections will certainly be worth a watch.

Keep going!
The ‘great majority’ of online content ‘is not subject to effective safeguards’, said the report. Image: Archi Banal
The ‘great majority’ of online content ‘is not subject to effective safeguards’, said the report. Image: Archi Banal

PoliticsJune 29, 2022

Exposure to content urging violence: high. Faith in platforms to deal with it: low

The ‘great majority’ of online content ‘is not subject to effective safeguards’, said the report. Image: Archi Banal
The ‘great majority’ of online content ‘is not subject to effective safeguards’, said the report. Image: Archi Banal

One in three New Zealanders has seen content directly promoting violence towards others in the last year, according to new research from the Classification Office. 

As New Zealand grapples with new, growing forms of toxic digital material and the ways those can seep into the real world, new research lays bare the widespread exposure to dangerous content in Aotearoa – and just how sceptical we are about the large digital platforms’ efforts to provide a safe online environment. 

Among the most striking findings in the Classification Office report published this morning, which draws on a Kantar survey of 1,201 people, is that 33% had over the past year “seen content that directly promotes or encourages violence towards others”. Most of those – 29% in total – had seen material that included “violence towards others based on things like race, culture, religion, sexuality or gender”, while 20% had encountered expressions of “‘violent extremism or terrorism”. One in five said they had personally seen content that encouraged suicide, self-harming or eating disorders. 

These were “pretty shocking numbers”, said acting chief censor Rupert Ablett-Hampson in an interview with The Spinoff. But, he added, “it’s not surprising, given recent times.” The risk of such expressions spilling out of digital spaces was very serious. “You see these real life events occurring because of things that happened online,” said Ablett-Hampson. “If you look at the recent Buffalo shootings, there is a direct link to the Christchurch mosque terrorist, to his livestream, his ‘manifesto’. Those are directly attributed [influences] by the Buffalo shooter.”

‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?’ From What We’re Watching, Classification Office, 2022

Entitled What We’re Watching: New Zealanders’ Views About What We See on Screen and Online, the survey pointed to a high level of confidence in the classification regime for traditional forms such as films, television and written publications. That provided “some solace”, said Ablett-Hampson. “Conventional media have these familiar tools people are able to use and understand and guide choices for their children and whānau.” But the online deluge was a challenge of different proportions. 

“When you’re in the wasteland of social media, there isn’t that guidance there. TikTok can go, for example, from the most mundane clip of kids trying to emulate dance moves to some of the most extreme and vile content.” There had been encouraging signs, he said, with the protocol under GIFCT – the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism established as part of the Christchurch Call – working effectively to take content down after the Buffalo attack, “but, you know, once you’ve seen it you’ve seen it. People are being exposed to that content.”

From What We’re Watching, Classification Office, 2022

Similarly, while the recent addition of streaming platforms such as Netflix to the classification system was “really positive”, that represented a fraction of materials viewed. “As any parent knows,” said Ablett-Hampson, “more and more of the media that children and young people are consuming is not on these platforms, it’s on social media.”

When it comes to that content, there was a marked lack of confidence that the platforms are stepping up. Asked if they agreed that online platforms provided what people needed to keep them safe, just 33% said they somewhat or strongly agreed. Asked whether they trusted social media platforms to remove dangerous, violent or harmful content, 27% answered yes and 51% no. According to the report, respondents sought the following: “stronger and better regulation; better education, information and support; improved technical solutions and tools; and the need for tech/social media companies to do more.”

While the vast majority supported regulation of harmful content, with 89% considering the work of a classification agency very or quite useful, only 43% believed the current system was working well “to keep young people safe from inappropriate or harmful content online”. Despite this, a majority of respondents, 61%, said they felt they knew “enough to help keep my family/whānau stay safe online”.

The report summarised survey participants’ comments in this way: “The most common response was in support of government action and more effective regulation. Relatively few participants talked about age ratings or restrictions on content like movies or shows, rather, the pressing issue for most was about social media and other online content. Some talked about tougher measures to hold tech companies to account, and others about legal requirements for online age restrictions.”

Recent months have seen everyone from disinformation scholars to the outgoing chief censor suggesting the collected parts of New Zealand’s content regulatory framework are not “fit for purpose” in confronting the torrents of toxic online material. That question underpins the Content Regulatory Review launched last September by Internal Affairs – a project referenced directly in the concluding remarks of the Classification Office’s What We’re Watching report. “New Zealand is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of content regulation, and this a key opportunity to learn from overseas developments and ensure we have a system that works to ensure the safety and wellbeing of New Zealanders,” it urged, under the header “The harms are real, and we need to take action”.

The conclusion noted “the great majority” of online content “is not subject to effective safeguards”, continuing: “The reality for New Zealanders – including our rangatahi – is that much of the material they see online is provided by global social media platforms. These large online platforms have taken significant steps to address issues around harmful content on their services in recent years, such as by taking actions to address the spread of misinformation or extremist content. However, these measures remain highly variable and often ineffective. This is reflected in our own findings about New Zealanders’ relatively low levels of trust in social media companies to take sufficient measures to ensure the safety of users and to remove harmful or dangerous content.”

For the group leading the regulatory review, “the big message is Kiwis care about this,” said Ablett-Hampson. Pointing again to the lack of faith in social media platforms and safety, he said: “Wherever the media content review lands, it must do something to address that confidence for New Zealanders.”

But wait there's more!