Skip to Content »

Reason #10 why big business is wrong, the Greens are right to oppose uber-city amalgamation

  • November 11th, 2014

A  good reason for Wellington fighting the uber-city like the plague, is the opportunity it creates for well meaning fools to write their wish lists into the consequent brave new super city single plan. Fran Wilde’s team, and the LGC have urged the opportunity to replace multiple plans (effectively current regulatory competition) with a shiny new unitary plan, as a reason to ape Auckland’s move to a super-city.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan has many elements calculated to stop spontaneous intensification of the leafy inner suburbs, and to force new home buyers into the distant suburbs.

And even out there, the planners’ economic ignorance is at work. They’ve decided to handicap medium and large scale development. Planners and nimbys having broken the market, they then double the damage with patches over the consequences of their market vandalism.

Italics below are quoted from the 7000 pages of the draft plan:

The Unitary Plan requires 10% of all developments greater than 15 units or sections to be made affordable and be held in perpetuity with Council approval being required on resale/re-occupation. Social housing providers are excluded.

Part 3, Chapter H, section says:

Where a new development within the RUB contains more than 15 dwellings or involves the creation of more than 15 vacant sites, at least 10 per cent of the total number of dwellings or vacant sites within the development must be retained affordable housing. Where a framework plan applies, this requirement applies to the entire framework plan area.

Part 3, Chapter H, section says:

1. Except for retained affordable housing provided by a community housing provider, retained affordable housing must have a legally enforceable retention mechanism, including, but not limited to, a covenant supported by a memorandum of encumbrance registered on the certificate of title or consent notice under the RMA, that:

 a. limits rent or re-sale (including a future dwelling in the case of a vacant site subdivision) to an occupier who is approved by the council as meeting the eligibility criteria below, or

b. limits resale to a community housing provider approved by the council, or

 c. limits rent and resale to a formula that ensures that the dwelling remains affordable into the long term, including a future dwelling in the case of vacant site subdivision, and

 d. provides for monitoring of the terms of the covenant or consent notice and the process should those terms be breached including where occupiers have defaulted on the mortgage and lenders seek to recover their interests in the property, and

 e. is legally enforceable by the council in perpetuity.

 Part 3, Chapter H, section says:

 To be eligible for retained affordable housing:

 a. at least one member of the household must be and will remain a New Zealand resident or citizen

 b. at least one member of the household at the time of the application to council must be employed on at least a part-time basis (more than 20 hours a week) with an employer within Auckland

 c. the property must be used exclusively as the household’s primary residence

 d. households that seek to purchase dwellings must have sufficient assets to provide the required deposit

 e. Households must have an income of between 80 and 120 per cent of the regional median household income.

The damage is not only from the direct ‘confiscation’ disincentives to large development. Think of the political dynamics of the consent process when developers face neighbours who not only prefer the status quo, but also fear the impact of ‘social housing’ in every significant development, however socially and economically disastrous it proves to be. The developer hands over to the Council in perpetuity the power to inflict the city’s scum as neighbours on the full paying young families. Suck that up you evil would-be providers of housing. It may be entirely unfair to  describe ‘affordable’ housing beneficiaries like that, but people will take the precautionary approach of fearing the worst. They have no reason to trust Council reassurances in planning matters.

So here is a succinct summary of what should guide the response to the affordable housing challenge.




  • Al Gustafson
  • December 12th, 2014
  • 6:56 pm

Barely read the piece – immediate reaction – aimed to recreate a socialist dictatorship.

Leave your comments:

* Required fields. Your e-mail address will not be published on this site

You can use the following HTML tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>