Kerre Woodham: The housing intensification battle reaches cabinet level

The battle over intensification of housing has reached cabinet level, with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Minister at odds over Chris Bishop's plan to get hundreds of thousands of houses built in the super city.  

“It's 2 million,” I hear you say. “They want to build two million houses.” Well, the Housing Minister addresses this in his column in this morning's Herald. There will be the ability for the council to consent two million homes. That doesn't mean they will all be built, as he says, the Auckland unitary plan enabled around a million homes. Ten years later, only around 10% of that enabled capacity has actually turned into new housing. The idea that a plan change that enables two million homes is suddenly going to result in two million homes being built in the short term is nuts, he says. Housing capacity does not immediately mean construction. It means the ability to do it, and it means infrastructure can be sequenced and coordinated to support it.  

He said, "I expect that the housing capacity the Auckland Council is enabling through this new plan change will support Auckland's growth over the next 30 to 50 years."  

Chris Bishop says in the past week or so we've seen an almost unprecedented level of misinformation spread about the new draft plan change. He says Auckland is not about to be overrun with sky-riser apartments. The tree-lined streets of the suburbs are not about to be destroyed. Raw sewage will not be bubbling up onto the footpaths or into the Waitematā.  

The Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the MP for a suburb of tree-lined streets, says the new plan is flawed and he will lobby for changes. He told a public meeting last week that he and supporters must impress on Chris Bishop that this plan is not necessary and it will have negative unintended consequences, as he told Mike Hosking on the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning.  

“The plan that has been produced by Auckland Council, as Chris Bishop noted in his column this morning, that requires almost no greenfield development, all intensification. It requires half of Parnell to have 50-metre buildings. Now, I just make the point that, you know, it's only two years ago that we had a building fall into a sinkhole because a 120-year-old brick sewer underneath Parnell imploded and everything fell down into it and we had two years of fixing that up. So, the idea you're going to intensify at that rate there, doesn't make sense.  

“So, we've got an improvement, but now we've got, an obligation, I think, to make sure that we really go through this from an Auckland perspective and make sure that the plan actually makes sense.” 

I think, David Seymour, as the MP for Epsom, makes a very good point. There was a great big sinkhole in Parnell because the pipes imploded. Their necessary infrastructure wasn't there. And I wish every single time the government or the council or developers talked about houses, they added the words ‘and the supporting infrastructure’.  

I can see where both ministers are coming from. We need more housing and supporting infrastructure in all of New Zealand cities. Chris Bishop is passionate about this. He wants to get housing affordability down, the best way to do that is to increase the supply of houses and the supporting infrastructure. But I'm wary of his comment in his column that cities aren't museums, that our streets should not be shrines to the past. Chris Bishop was only a baby when the wholesale destruction of Auckland's Victorian and Edwardian buildings took place. He didn't experience the horror of seeing beautiful old buildings torn down and replaced with priapic smoked glass monstrosities erected in the name of men's egos. Hideous. Not all old buildings are created equal. Not every single building born and erected before 1900 should be saved and preserved in aspic, but we need to keep some links with our past. To know where we're going, we need to know where we've been.  

We need more housing. We need more affordable housing. We need a variety of housing. It can't all be created equal. Chris Bishop says too in his columns, that he's perplexed by the council's aversion to new greenfield housing, big new subdivisions on the city fringe. He says that he's in favour of greenfield housing where the infrastructure costs can be recovered from new residents. He says in his view, the council should be zoning more for this sort of housing. The new draft plan is a missed opportunity, he says, but it's a draft and the council has a chance to improve it. But I guess the council's looking at arable land. You can't just soak up the land where food is produced to plonk more people there.  

So, what would you rather? Go up, the high-density apartment buildings? Go out? The greenfield housing on the outskirts of the city where you contribute toward

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talks HEADB.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
The battle over intensification of housing has reached cabinet level,
with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Minister at
odds over Chris Bishop's plan to get hundreds of thousands
of houses built in the supercity. It's two million. I
hear you say they want to build two million houses.
While the Housing Minister addresses this in his column in

(00:32):
this Morning's Herald, there will be the ability for the
Council to consent two million homes. That doesn't mean they
will all be built, As he says, the Auckland Unitary
Plan enabled around a million homes. Ten years later, only
around ten percent of that enabled capacity has actually turned
into new housing. The idea that a plan change that

(00:55):
enables two million homes is suddenly going to result in
two million homes being built in the short term as
nuts he says, housing capacity he does not immediately mean construction.
It means the ability to do it, and it means
infrastructure can be sequenced and coordinated to support it. He said,

(01:18):
I expect that the housing capacity the Auckland Council is
enabling through this new plan change will support Auckland's growth
over the next thirty to fifty years. Chris Bishop says
in the past week or so, we've seen an almost
unprecedented level of misinformation spread about the new draft plan change.
He says Auckland is not about to be overrun with

(01:40):
Skyrise apartments. The tree lined streets of the suburbs are
not about to be destroyed. Raw sewage will not be
bubbling up onto the footpaths or into the white matar.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the MP for
a suburb of tree lined streets, says the new plan
is flawed and he will lobby for changes. He told

(02:03):
a public meeting last week that he and supporters must
impress on Chris Bishop that this plan is not necessary
and it will have negative, unintended consequences. As he told
Mike Cosking on the Mike Costing Breakfast this morning.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
The plan that has been produced by Auckland Council is
Chris Bishop noted in his column this morning, that requires
almost no greenfield development, all intensification. It requires half of
Parnell to have fifty meters buildings. Now, I just make
the point that you know tonally two years ago that
we had a building fall into a sinkhole because a

(02:39):
one hundred and twenty year old brick sewer underneath Parnell
imploded and everything fell down into it, and we had
two years of fixing that up. So the idea you're
going to intensify that rate there doesn't make sense. So
we've got an improvement, but now we've got an obligation.
I think to make sure that we really go through
this from an Auckland perspective and make sure that the

(03:01):
plan actually makes sense.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
And I think I see more as the MP for
EPSOM makes a very good point. There was a great
big sinkhole in Parnell because the pipes imploded. Their necessary
infrastructure wasn't there. And I wish every single time the
government or the council or developers talked about houses they
added the words and the supporting infrastructure. I can see

(03:29):
where both ministers are coming from. We need more housing
and supporting infrastructure and all of New Zealand cities. Chris
Bishop is passionate about this. He wants to get housing
affordability down. The best way to do that is to
increase the supply of houses and the supporting infrastructure but

(03:52):
I'm weary of his comment in his column that cities
aren't museums, that our streets should not be shrines to
the past. Chris Bishop was only a baby when the
wholesale destruction of Auckland's Victorian and Edwardian buildings took place.
Hey didn't experience the horror of seeing the beautiful old

(04:15):
buildings torn down and replaced with pre apic, smoked glass
monstrosities erected in the name of men's egos. It is
not all old buildings are created equal. Not every single
building born, born and erected before nineteen hundred should be
saved and preserved in aspect. But we need to keep

(04:38):
some links with our past to know where we're going.
We need to know where we've been. It's like in
Wellington at the moment, at one time in Wellington that
architecture meant that we all lived, no matter if you
were the poorest student or the most humble of waitresses,

(04:59):
or if you were a decision maker at the top
of government, you lived in a city that belonged to everybody,
and every nobody could enjoy the beauty of it. The
opening up of the foreshore, you know, the waterfront meant
everybody could enjoy it. The Paramatchet Bridge was absolutely beautiful

(05:20):
and linked the city to the sea, the library, with
the ian Asfield Palms, the Neco Palms, we could all
enjoy that. You didn't have to be rich to live
in a rich, beautiful city. And now the decision to
tear down the Paramatchet Bridge gives me genuine pain. And

(05:41):
it's just symbolic of what's happened to the capital city.
It was a place of such beauty and aspiration and
hope and everybody was a part of the change. And
and that you know, Auckland. Auckland went through its own
period of desolation and despair when hideous, hideous buildings replace

(06:06):
beautiful historic constructions that were utilitarian. Sure you could use them,
but they're also beautiful. So I can see both sides.
I really can. We need more housing, We need more
affordable housing, We need a variety of housing. It can't
all be created equal. Chris Bishop says too in his

(06:29):
columns that is perplexed by the council's aversion to new
greenfield housing, big new subdivisions on the city fringe. He
says that he's in favor of greenfield housing where the
infrastructure costs can be recovered from new residents. He says,
in his view, the council should be zoning more for
this sort of housing. The new draft plan is a

(06:50):
missed opportunity, he says, But it's a draft and the
council has a chance to improve it. But I guess
the councils look at arable land. You know, you can't
just soak up the land where food is produced to
put plant more people there. So what would you rather

(07:11):
go up? The high density apartment buildings, go out the
greenfield housing on the outskirts of the city, where you
contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure needed to have
long term viable housing there. Can we have a little

(07:31):
bit of everything, a little bit of the old buildings,
a little bit of the heritage buildings, a few tree
lined streets, apartment living for those who want it and
love it. I'm wary of more big subdivisions on the
city fringe because I'm mindful that that land is usually
good land for growing food.

Speaker 1 (07:54):
For more from Kerrywood and Mornings, Listen live to news talks.
It'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.