The preferred option put forward by council staff is not the first choice of Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, who advocates for greater density.
“A city that sprawls forever isn’t a city; it’s one big, soulless suburb,” he said.
And councillor Richard Hills told the Herald the Government’s edict to dilute density plans could push up house prices in the long term.
The options
Residential zones are beige/yellow/orange and business zones are pink/purple.
Option A
This option allows for the least amount of density and most closely resembles what is currently allowed under the Auckland Unitary Plan. It would allow capacity for between 1.4 million and 1.5 million homes.
Option B
This option is the preferred option of council staff. It represents a compromise between Option A and and the original development options available under Plan Change 120.
It would allow apartment towers of 10 storeys at more train stations and blocks of six storeys on more bus corridors. It would allow for capacity of 1,515,000 to 1,715,000 homes.
Option C
It’s understood this option was preferred by Brown. It would enable more development in areas with better access and less development in areas with poorer access.
More 10- to 15-storey apartment blocks could be built across the city under Option C. This option would enable between 1.47 million and 1.67 million homes.
Option D
This option is essentially the same as Plan Change 120 and unlikely to be adopted, given the Government’s edict to the council to reduce the number of homes that could be built under its housing plan. Option D would enable two million homes.
‘Overwhelming majority’ of Aucklanders won’t be affected: councillor
Auckland councillor and planning committee chairman Richard Hills said staff had tried to recommend options they believed reflected the direction most councillors were heading towards.
Under Scenario B, most suburban areas were unchanged from their Unitary Plan designations, which meant much of the controversial upzoning allowed for in residential areas under Plan Change 120 would no longer be possible without resource consent.
Character protections currently in place would be reduced under all the options, with areas like Kingsland and Mt Eden most affected, Hills said.
He believed scenario B – or something similar – struck the right compromise between the council’s desire to enable housing intensity in order to deliver more affordable homes, and the Government’s concern about inappropriate upzoning in some leafy suburbs.
“B includes walkable catchments around everyone’s town centres, depending on the suburb, everyone’s train station, things like that,” Hills said.
“But there is a significant number of Aucklanders, the overwhelming majority, who won’t be affected at all, as in there will be no upzone difference from the Unitary Plan.”
Hills expressed frustration over the process and delays, saying changes repeatedly forced on the council by the Government meant “it has not been a straightforward five years”.
“If I’m being completely honest here, I’ve had completely different views from parts of Government, parts of Cabinet, MPs from different parties, so it has been a confusing ride.”
Asked if removing the ability to build higher in many suburbs could undermine house prices for people hoping to subdivide their properties, Hills said it was hard to know.
But at least they would have certainty once a final decision was made.
He believed the Government’s requirement to reduce the city’s overall housing capacity from two million homes to 1.4 million could mean higher house prices over time.
‘One big, soulless suburb’
The mayor – who was absent from this morning’s media briefing – told the Herald his views on intensification were widely known.
“A city that sprawls forever isn’t a city; it’s one big, soulless suburb,” Brown said.
“I want growth that brings people together rather than pitting generations of Aucklanders against one another. I want growth that stops the eternal commute.
“While I’d support a more comprehensive scenario in theory, I believe B would still deliver intensification where it makes the most sense. It seems silly to only look to intensify along the western and southern line and not include the eastern.”
Auckland Council’s density proposals – known as Plan Change 120 – were keenly debated last year when officials prepared new rules to comply with Bishop’s nationwide push to enable more housing capacity.
Advocates for building more supply warn that housing in the city will remain unaffordable without significant new capacity, while detractors fear Auckland suburbs may be inundated with new, unsightly intensification, putting pressure on aged and frail infrastructure.
Despite the council approving Plan Change 120 last September, the faultlines spilled into election year and led to tension between Brown and Government ministers.
Former National Cabinet minister Maurice Williamson, one of two councillors for the Howick Ward, last December urged the Government to pull back from its mandated intensification plans, warning it would cost the party votes.
The Act Party also voiced consistent criticism of intensification plans and residents concerned about the impact of the changes voiced concerns at a series of public meetings.
Against that background, Bishop changed tack and revised down the minimum potential number of additional homes allowed under the rules from two million to 1.6 million, and then to 1.4 million in late March.
Bishop said at the time: “Aucklanders have been clear that they want housing growth, so long as it happens in the right places and where infrastructure can support it.”
He said he believed the new number would “finally brings consensus on this important issue”.
“Aucklanders deserve certainty on this city-shaping plan change,” Bishop said.