Opinion: Lianne Dalziel on housing intensification - 'one size does not fit all'

Lianne Dalziel will ask for a bespoke solution for Christchurch that meets the Government's objectives but protects the liveability of the city and the tree canopy. Photo / Supplied

Opinion

OPINION

When it comes to housing intensification rules, the message from Ōtautahi Christchurch is loud and clear: One size does not fit all.

After the Christchurch City Council voted last week to reject the Government-imposed housing intensification rules, someone suggested to me I would feel vindicated if the Environment Minister intervened, as I warned he could.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to be proven wrong.

Residents are concerned about how the intensification rules are going to impact their neighbourhoods. Photo / Supplied

This week I am sending a letter to the Environment Minister where I repeat the same words I have used to ministers, officials and the select committee since the draft National Policy Statement – Urban Development (NPS-UD) was first published: "A collaborative partnership between local and central government would produce better outcomes than a blunt, one-size-fits-all, legislative approach".

I stand by those words. Ōtautahi Christchurch needs a bespoke solution.

Let me be clear. We are not saying no to intensification. We need to allow more housing options in certain parts of our city if we are to avoid urban sprawl and cater for our ever-growing population.

That is why we have put a strong focus on working with our neighbouring councils on spatial planning for the greater Christchurch region. We started back in 2007 with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy.

After the earthquakes, that strategy gave the Government a blueprint for enabling replacement housing to be built at pace.

The Government also took the opportunity after the earthquakes to fast-track a rewrite of the Christchurch District Plan. At the Government's direction, consenting and notification requirements were reduced, housing and businesses were to be enabled, and residential densities increased in a range of areas.

We were just starting to see the impacts of those changes - in the form of over-intensification and declining tree canopy cover - when the Government introduced the NPS-UD.

Our central city already enables at least 50 households per hectare. We have height limits that are sympathetic to the post-earthquake environment and our ground conditions.

Our residential medium-density zones enable at least 30 households per hectare.

This means we are already actively encouraging intensification in the inner city and within walking and cycling distances of core services and transport corridors.

That is why I could tell the select committee and ministers that we can make the NPS-UD work, by targeting increased development in areas where we know we can grow, rather than enabling ad-hoc, pepper-potted development in areas dictated solely by developers.

I warned ministers that its proposal could lead to increased intensification of outer suburbs, where land is cheaper, drawing households further away from the city centre, suburban centres and public transport routes.

This is the opposite of what any city needs.

At the same time, we have acknowledged the need for a minimum residential density in the urban parts of our neighbouring districts' towns – Lincoln, Rolleston, Kaiapoi and Rangiora. We have all agreed there should be higher densities around their town centres, as this will help support the case for mass rapid transit.

We do not want to wait until we have Auckland's transport problems before we act – we want to get ahead of the curve.

Our residents have made it clear, through repeated deputations to the council, that they are deeply concerned about how the intensification rules are going to impact on their neighbourhoods. They are worried about the loss of green space and tree canopy and about the detrimental impacts on amenity and the liveability of local neighbourhoods.

We have a desire to become a National Park City, yet the latest survey indicates that our city's tree canopy cover is declining.

Trees provide more than amenity value. They support biodiversity and provide shade. They are our city's lungs and are vital for reducing and/or offsetting emissions and combating climate change.

I am pleased that last week all but one councillor voted to introduce a plan change that will require those subdividing their properties to have a 20 per cent tree canopy or pay financial contributions to the council to enable us to purchase land and plant trees. That is why financial contributions are such an important tool.

We are not like Auckland or Wellington, which are hilly and have natural gullies that can't be built on. We are a flat city so we need to take active steps to ensure there are pockets of green space.

We are supportive of the Government's aims to address housing shortages and enable the delivery of a wider range of housing options. A blanket rule change isn't necessary here. We have an ample supply of places available where people can subdivide to create more housing.

I will be asking the minister for a bespoke solution for Ōtautahi Christchurch that meets the Government's objectives but protects the liveability of our city and our tree canopy.

As a city, we cannot afford to provide more subdivisions than we need at the expense of our trees, which are an important part of our climate action and our identity as Aotearoa's Garden City.

As I said at the start, one size does not fit all.