Hastings: The three words allowing Hastings District Council to consent denser housing in the suburbs

The Southland Rd site at present and an artist's impression (inset) of what it could look like when developed into 10 units. Photo / Warren Buckland

It’s a three-word term usually used to describe the likes of granny flats or sleepouts.

But a Hastings surveying and planning company is alleging Hastings District Council is essentially creating a new definition of a “supplementary residential building” in its bid to resolve a housing shortage in the city.

McFlynn Surveying and Planning says the council is running roughshod over its District Plan by allowing new homes to be shoehorned through the planning process as supplementary residential buildings, which then makes it easier to fast-track dense housing projects in the city.

Hastings District Council disagrees. It says it is not breaching its District Plan and there is no requirement for supplementary residential buildings to only be used as supporting accommodation.

The consents for two housing subdivisions recently approved by the council in the suburb of Raureka are what have drawn the eye and the ire of McFlynn Surveying and Planning owners Greg and Angela McFlynn.

One is a property to be developed into 10 single-storey units at 711 Southland Rd, and another is a property to be developed into five single-storey units at 1009 Stirling St.

The term “supplementary residential building” was used in each consent, and more homes were able to be included on the sites as a result.

Both properties are owned by private company NZ Housing Group Hastings Ltd and formerly included one dwelling each. NZ Housing Group Hastings Ltd could not be reached for comment.

One of the projects, on the site of a Tudor-style villa on Southland Rd, hit headlines earlier this year after the villa was offered up for free and then demolished to make way for the subdivision.

The house on Southland Rd in Hastings which has since been demolished. Photo / Warren Buckland

There was no limited or public notification for neighbours to have a say on the applications for the two housing projects, as planning reports to the council found the effects on the environment were no more than minor.

Under the council’s District Plan, developers can build one residential building per 350m2 net lot size within the general residential zone (which applies to both properties in Raureka).

The average lot sizes for these two housing projects are below 250m2 (each of which will include a unit), and in some cases go below 200m2.

Some areas of Hastings have been earmarked by the council as suitable for comprehensive residential development, but the area does not include the two sites.

A council spokesperson said the resource consents were granted as a 350m2 site can have a primary dwelling, plus a supplementary dwelling of up to 80m2.

“While the District Plan expects supplementary residential buildings to be used for supporting accommodation such as a granny flat, there is no requirement for these to be used in such a manner [and] they can be rented out independently,” the spokesperson said.

The council spokesperson said a stand-alone unit or home can be deemed a supplementary residential building if it has a gross floor area of less than 80m2, which many of the units in the developments do.

The empty development site in Southland Rd as of this week, ahead of the housing project. Photo / Warren Buckland

The McFlynns were shocked to learn the council had used the term “supplementary residential building” to approve the consents, which they say essentially allows a home to be built on a 175m2 site rather than a 350m2 site.

Angela McFlynn, a resource management planner with a decade’s worth of experience in Hawke’s Bay, said she had seen that term used for the likes of granny flats, but never a stand-alone home or title.

“The supplementary dwelling is not an excuse to go below the 350m2 [minimum lot requirement],” she said.

“It is not a stand-alone dwelling, it is not intended to be a standalone dwelling. It cannot be used to justify another stand-alone dwelling and subdivision.

“To create a separate title for a supplementary dwelling is, [in my opinion], not allowed under the District Plan.”

The District Plan includes a definition for a supplementary residential building. It states that the building “supports” a principal dwelling and is “located within the curtilage of the principal dwelling and shares its vehicle access and services as well as its outdoor living area”.

The Stirling St development which will see five homes built. Photo / Paul Taylor

Greg McFlynn, a surveyor with a decade’s experience in Hawke’s Bay, said the council’s argument to allow supplementary dwellings to be used to allow subdivisions below 350m2 per site was “fanciful”.

“It’s a flagrant disregard for their District Plan and for the consenting process.”

Greg, whose parents live near the Southland Rd project, said both housing projects should have been publicly notified - or at least limited notified - so neighbours could have had a say.

“We are not saying the consent should be turned down, just that it should be publicly notified,” he said.

“If there was public notification, there would be opposition from the neighbours and it would go to a hearing with independent commissioners.”

Artist impression of what the Stirling St development could look like (within the fenced boundary). Photo / Hastings Council

He said they were certainly not against intensification and “we understand that it needs to happen”.

“But the way they are doing it is just going to create issues down the track, because they are just jamming people in where there still needs to be a certain level of amenity, which the District Plan is pretty specific about,” he said.

He said in his opinion, the council were “not playing by their own rules”.

Gary Hamilton-Irvine is a Hawke’s Bay-based reporter who covers a range of news topics including business, councils, breaking news and cyclone recovery. He formerly worked at News Corp Australia.