Councillors will indicate their preferences next week on how far to wind back Auckland's divisive intensification plans, with options ranging from a bare-minimum approach to keeping the original upzoning largely intact.
At a workshop last week, council staff presented councillors with four options for scaling back Plan Change 120 - the sweeping rezoning plan that had been designed to flood the property market with development opportunities across Auckland — plus partial withdrawal variants that could remove large swathes from the process entirely.
The Government slashed housing capacity requirements from a minimum of two million to 1.4 million earlier this year, after Housing Minister Chris Bishop initially flagged a reduction to 1.6 million in February before legislating the lower figure in March.
Councillors were expected to choose one of six potential options for reducing intensification at a meeting next Tuesday.
At the workshop, Mayor Wayne Brown expressed frustration with the complexity of the process and the difficulty of making decisions based on high-level maps.
"People will be pissed off if we wreck their houses," he said, calling for local boards to be given detailed, street-level maps and a stronger say in the outcome.
"There's just no detail here. You look at that, and holy shit, I could vote on this. I could be making some humongous errors to people's lives here."
Brown said there was huge variation across communities and urged the council to seek local board input.
"We want to hear their view of their area, not necessarily the Howick view of what Wellsford should look like, with no disrespect to the Howick view, vice versa as well."
Four scenarios vary for intensification
The four "scenario" options presented ranged from doing only what is legally required, for allowing more housing, to keeping the original Plan Change 120 largely intact.
At one end, Scenario A — labelled "essentials only" — would mostly limit the plan change to mandatory intensification required by the Government, landing closest to the legal minimum of 1.4 million homes.
That means six-storey height limits in most walkable catchments, with upzoning around town centres, train stations and busway stations. The exception is five Western train line stations, where 10 and 15-storey heights are mandated by Government legislation.
Cabinet has agreed to reduce the minimum housing capacity the supercity must zone for from approximately two million dwellings to 1.6 million. (Source: 1News)
It means no upzoning around smaller local centres and along the more than two dozen bus corridors — including Dominion Rd, Sandringham Rd and Great North Rd — earmarked for apartment zoning under the original plan.
A variant, Scenario A1, would go a step further and formally withdraw the wider suburban area from the plan change entirely. Withdrawal would remove those areas from consideration by the hearings panel, with existing zoning staying in place.
That wider residential area makes up roughly 75-80% of Auckland's urban land, according to council planner John Duguid.
Manurewa-Papakura councillor Daniel Newman backed that option. "Whilst I have a degree of sympathy for people having their say, I think I want to achieve the outcome more than achieving the outcome with people participating in the hearings itself."
North Shore councillor John Gillon also endorsed moving to an essentials only approach.
Scenario B, a middle-ground option, would keep intensification around both town and local centres but reduce building heights in outer-lying walkable catchments. Bus corridors and the wider suburban area would revert to current settings.
A partial withdrawal variant, B1, was also on the table.
Scenario C, described as a comprehensive adjustment of intensification, would rezone the wider suburban area based on access to public transport and the city centre, with lower-access areas kept at single-house zoning and higher-access areas zoned for more.
It would also retain townhouse-style upzoning along most bus corridors within 10km of the CBD, dropping only three or four outer corridors in eastern and western suburbs.
Meanwhile Scenario D was essentially Plan Change 120 as originally notified, with minor reductions for natural hazards, retaining capacity for about two million dwellings.
House price outcomes range in scenarios
Council modelling presented to councillors at the workshop showed the options would produce starkly different outcomes.
The modelling distinguishes between zoned capacity — the theoretical maximum number of homes allowed — and the number expected to actually be built.
Chief economist Gary Blick told councillors that greater housing capacity would lead to lower house prices over time - between 1% and 2% lower under the most stripped-back option, and 5% to 8% lower under the full plan change.
The total estimated economic benefit over 10 years ranged from $700 million at the low end with Scenario A to $3.9 billion under the scenario closest to the original plan.
Councillor Newman questioned staff on whether it was the council's job to drive down house prices through zoning rules, adding that "there is already extraordinary capacity available, latent [housing] capacity in our enabled unitary plan".
Auckland Council strategy chief Megan Tyler said it was "very much part of the basis that this Government has made the changes" - that more housing supply would lower prices.
"You're right though that it's not council's role in and of itself to set or influence directly prices, but that is what the Government is wanting us to do through our land use policy."
Newman responded: "The reason why the Government changed is the Government is terrified that it won't be the Government much longer, but just to clarify, the council's responsibility here is not to try and necessarily drive down the cost of housing".
Not all councillors favoured an essentials only approach.
Waitākere councillor Shane Henderson said the economic evidence supported more intensification.
"I think we do have a reason to placemake and to try and help people's household bills around housing and all those kinds of things. We do have an interest in house prices as a council and try and help people. Scenario C does that the best."
He said he preferred the original plan change "but that's just not going to get support".
Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa councillor Julie Fairey also preferred Scenario C and raised concerns about the democratic implications of a partial withdrawal.
"I'm quite keen on C — I'm really worried about withdrawing and potentially removing people's rights and expectations, even if we are going for one of the smaller scenarios."
Staff told the workshop there were practical reasons to consider partial withdrawal, including the Government's resource management changes which meant Plan Change 120 would have a lifespan of only about 18 months - from June 2027 to December 2028.
Franklin councillor Andy Baker said he accepted the need to maximise development around train stations but described the plan change as a "blunt tool". He pointed to Pukekohe's main street, where councils had restricted building heights.
"Successive councils have protected the sunlight into that by restricting the height on the northern side of the street, so that because that is a big thing for the street, that is what makes Pukekohe's township such a buzzing, bloody great place," he said.
"Under Plan Change 120, half of the street goes six storeys both sides, that will kill the street, that will kill Pukekohe as a town, and because it will become a dark, dirty wind tunnel that no one will want to go to."
He called for greater use of qualifying matters.
Deputy mayor Desley Simpson pushed staff to provide a summary of the 67,000 submissions already received on the plan change, saying the council needed to show Aucklanders their feedback had been heard.
"People have taken the time to have their say," Simpson said. "I think it's fair."
The policy, planning and development committee was due to select a preferred scenario at a meeting on June 9, which will then go to local boards and iwi for consultation.
Council staff said they were still working towards their own recommended scenario, which would be presented to the committee.
A final decision on amendments is expected in late July, with a further round of public submissions to follow as part of the independent hearings panel process.
SHARE ME