Wellington’s housing panel slashed high-density zoning across the city. These maps showed how much they changed.
The independent hearings panel making recommendations on Wellington’s District Plan slashed the amount of space where it would be legal to build high-density housing (which in most cases means six-storey apartments).
The panel repeatedly justified its decision by saying Wellington already had excess capacity, so cutting high-density zoning would make no difference. But the panel’s reports never offered any calculation of how much space it had downzoned, or how much potential new housing it had eliminated.
In total, 33 hectares of high-density zones have disappeared, replaced by medium-density zoning. The panel scrapped another 10 hectares of the city centre zone, replaced by a mixed use zone.
The change in high-density and city-centre zoning, by area (Source: Tim McNamara)
The high-density changes are not the full extent of the panel’s housing reductions, but are some of the most significant. These maps only show density shrink compared to the council’s draft District Plan. They do not include the many requests for upzoning that the panel rejected throughout the hearing process.
The extend of high-density zoning loss across central Wellington (Source: Tim McNamara)
As shown here, most of the cuts are in the inner residential suburbs on the fringes of the city centre.
There’s also one interesting thing that’s not changing. In the middle of the map above is a large slab of land with a cross-hatch pattern. Those 36 hectares between the Basin Reserve and the hospital cover Government House, Wellington College and Wellington East Girls’ College. They’re zoned as high-density residential. This is land that’s highly unlikely to be developed into housing, unless the governor-general is planning on moving to the sleep-out. So planners are working on the assumption that the city has more land available for high-density housing than it actually does.
Johnsonville
Zoning reductions in Johnsonville (Source: Tim McNamara)
The centre of Johnsonville will be zoned for high density because it is a metropolitan centre, but the panel shaved off some bits around the edges. The panel said it would be “fallacious” to allow a walking catchment to the east of State Highway 1, even though there is a pedestrian underpass. It decided the west of Johnsonville wasn’t walkable due to a hill.
Not shown on this map are the density changes due to the panel deciding the Johnsonville train was not “mass rapid transit”. The changes don’t affect the Johnsonville town centre, but had the train been considered mass rapid transit, it would have allowed high-density zoning within a five-minute walk of each of the six stops along the line.
Newtown
High-density zoning reductions in Newtown (Source: Tim McNamara)
Newtown got hit by a double whammy of reduced density.
The panel reduced the size of the city centre walking catchment to stop at John Street (by the Woolworths) instead of extending to Constable Street. It means the whole of Newtown is now excluded from the catchment, which would have allowed high-density zoning by default.
It also more than doubled the area of Newtown covered by character protections, from 25 hectares to 60 hectares, which chopped away even more of the high-density zone.
The city fringe
High-density zoning loss around the Wellington city fringe (Source: Tim McNamara)
The panel expanded character areas in Mount Victoria, Thorndon, Kelburn, Lower Kelburn, Aro Valley, Berhampore, The Terrace, Holloway Road, Mount Cook, and Newtown.
Mount Victoria, on the right of the map, shows one of the most dramatic changes. The character area more than doubled in size from 18 hectares to 36 hectares, covering almost the entire suburb. (Not all of these sites were previously zoned for high density.)
On the other side of town, Aro Valley’s character areas tripled in size, from seven hectares to 22 hectares. Mount Cook, at the bottom of the map, went from 11 hectares to 22 hectares.
Tim McNamara runs a global technology consultancy called Accelerant from Wellington. Accelerant advises clients on creating software that’s reliable, secure and energy efficient. Contact him at tim@accelerant.dev.
‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’
Cherie Jacobson is part of a group of Wellington heritage professionals who submitted on the District Plan. She spoke to The Spinoff about why she wants to keep character areas in the inner suburbs.
The Spinoff: For those who don’t know, could you explain the difference between character and heritage?
Both character and heritage have been protected by the District Plan for many years. The definition for heritage comes from the Resource Management Act as “natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures.” They can be sites or areas, including wāhi tapu, or structures. Character is defined in the District Plan as “a concentration of common, consistent natural and physical features and characteristics that collectively combine to establish the local distinctiveness and identity of an area, and that contribute to a unique ‘sense of place’.”
The difference seems to be between one building or structure being recognised for its heritage values versus a whole street or area. But in practice, heritage and character can be pretty indistinguishable. For example, in Wellington groups of commercial buildings have been made heritage areas (like Cuba Street), but groups of houses have generally been made character areas. I’ve been working in the heritage sector for five years and I still find the system difficult to understand. For example, many people don’t realise that if a place is listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Toanga, it’s not automatically protected. What matters is the recognition of a building or site in a local authority’s district plan, which dictates how it’s protected. This is why the District Plan is so important. Many people I work with agree that New Zealand’s heritage system could do with an overhaul but, for now, we’ve got to work with what we’ve got.
‘Love The Spinoff? Its future depends on your support. Become a member today.’
Madeleine Chapman — Editor
Why do you feel character areas are important for Wellington?
Wellington’s character areas are one of its most distinctive aspects – think of iconic images of Wellington and there’ll be a collection of wooden houses on Matairangi Mt Vic. Many Wellingtonians feel a strong connection with these neighbourhoods, which are built on a human scale that encourages interaction at street level.
I want to make it clear that I’m not against increasing the density of our city. No one can deny we need more housing and I welcome more development in my own suburb. However, it feels like heritage and character have become a scapegoat for the complex challenge of housing supply in Wellington – and sometimes conflated with poorly maintained rentals. I’m not naive to the experience of living in cold and mouldy houses in Wellington, anyone who has flatted in the city will have their stories to share. But I’ve also lived in two very well maintained early 20th-century Wellington houses; one in Newtown and the other in Northland. Both had insulation, heating, and responsive landlords/property managers which made a big difference. The state of any house is the responsibility of the person who owns it. The cliché “they don’t make them like they used to” is true for many of these houses, they were built with sturdy native timber and hard-wearing materials. Modern houses have a lifespan of 50 years, some have cladding and joinery that is designed to last for just 15 years.
We have lost so many of our heritage places – stretching back to the earliest human occupation, not just colonial structures. Through character areas we have an opportunity to protect some of what remains and the stories these areas tell about the development of the city and the people who lived here. These areas have been protected for a reason, it seems shortsighted to think we know best at this moment of time, because once they’re gone, they’re gone.
Photo: Getty Images
Character protections, by definition, are restrictions aimed at stopping homeowners from demolishing and developing their homes, which makes it hard to put higher density townhouses or apartments in those areas. How do you think Wellington should balance the need for more homes and intensification with protecting character?
We should improve the operation of character area protections rather than getting rid of them. The District Plan rules protecting pre-1930s housing in the inner suburbs don’t rule out development, they just mean you need to get consent to develop. The Council could make it easier and cheaper to apply for that consent.
They could look across the Tasman where the cheapest planning permit in the City of Melbourne is about 1/10th of the deposit Wellington City Council requires. Notification of permits so that the public can have a say is also commonplace (the latest data says almost 40% of permits in Victoria were notified compared to less than 1% in Wellington) and hearings are not always required. It was interesting to see Melbourne named by The Spinoff as one of the cities that the “creatives, students, hipsters and yo-pros” aspire for Wellington to be like. The City of Yarra (an urban local authority in inner Melbourne which includes suburbs like Collingwood, Abbotsford and Fitzroy) has focused its land-use policies on protecting heritage and character, while accommodating growth and change in strategic redevelopment sites and precincts. Approximately 70% of properties in the city are included in its Heritage Overlay.
People have been quick to blame character areas and heritage protection for the lack of housing development in Wellington. But one of Wellington’s big developers, Willis Bond, appeared at the District Plan hearings to say that availability of land isn’t the problem, the cost of development is. That’s backed up by the availability of land in the CBD and surrounding areas that’s crying out for more intensive development: 2018 research found that 20% of the CBD is at-grade car parks or parking buildings, while underdeveloped car yards line Kent and Cambridge Terraces.
Character areas currently apply to 88% of land parcels in the inner residential zone. The council’s proposed District Plan suggested shrinking character areas from 306 hectares to 85 hectares, retaining only the most authentic and best-preserved streets. What did you think of that proposal?
It’s far from agreed that the Council’s proposed 85 hectares covers Wellington’s most authentic and best-preserved streets. That proposal relied on analysis by one company using a methodology that other heritage experts took issue with.
Even if that 85 hectares does cover the best of the city’s residential character, the panel found that intensification immediately surrounding those areas would have a “Swiss cheese” effect, with tall buildings right next to or in the middle of character areas, reducing the concentration of features that contributed to the creation of a character area in the first place.
What did you think of the independent hearings panel’s recommendation to expand character areas back up to 206 hectares? Does it go far enough?
I respect the skills and experience the panel brought to its role – these weren’t people randomly picked off the street, they have significant experience in urban planning, heritage and other relevant areas. Their recommendation of 206 hectares would enable the intensification required over the next 30 years while avoiding that Swiss cheese effect. The group of heritage professionals I’m part of submitted in favour of retaining the original 306 hectares, but we know the city needs increased density so we accept the recommendation as a necessary compromise to achieve the required outcome. Everyone who has engaged in this process agrees that Wellington needs more housing. Everyone wants a vibrant, thriving, more accessible, intergenerational city. Lots of people look longingly to international cities full of heritage and density.
I find it really frustrating that right from the draft Spatial Plan the city’s housing challenges have consistently been portrayed as Boomer Nimby vs Millennials and Gen Z, old versus new. It’s a simplistic characterisation that ignores the complexity of the situation, the nuances of the debate and its evidence.
More Reading
What do you hope will happen in the council’s District Plan meeting on March 14?
I hope the Council will endorse the recommendations of the panel, which also reflect the recommendations of Council staff following the initial public consultation on the draft District Plan. I hope they’ll take a balanced approach and see that the protection of heritage and character is not incompatible with density, nor is it the main reason for the high cost or constraints on supply. A ‘leave it to the market to fix’ approach is not realistic. I really hope that we can move past this factionalism because I can’t see how a city whose residents are constantly pitted against each other can work successfully towards a positive future.
