New power is on the way for Housing Minister Chris Bishop to override local councils.
The Cabinet has agreed to implement a new rule that allows for them to “modify or remove provisions in local council plans if they negatively impact economic growth, development, or employment”.
The new regulation is temporary and will be in place until the Coalition Government’s new planning system comes into effect.
The Government aims to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) with a Natural Environment Act and a Planning Act.
Reforms to the RMA include things like: creating a single set of residential and commercial zoning rules which local councils can use to plan their districts and allowing people to build on their property unless it significantly impacts the natural environment or the ability of others to use their own land.
Speaking at the Wellington Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday morning, Bishop told the audience: “It is an inarguable, and sometimes uncomfortable, fact that local government has been one of the largest barriers to housing growth in New Zealand.”
Bishop says the Cabinet plans to add this interim measure to the RMA Amendment Bill that is before Parliament and it is expected the new regulation will be passed into law in the next few weeks.
But there is a caveat before this power can be used - the housing minister has to investigate, consider a council’s “consistency with existing national direction” under the RMA and engage with the local authority.
“We believe this strikes the appropriate balance between the local and national interest.”
"...We aren’t willing to let a single line in a district plan hold back millions or billions in economic potential. If local councillors don’t have the courage to make the tough decisions, we will do it for them.
"Let me be absolutely clear: the days of letting councils decide that growth shouldn’t happen at all are over."
Discussion document for “Going for Housing Growth” plan
Alongside this new regulation, Bishop also released a new discussion document about the Government’s “Going for Housing Growth” plan and in particular, its Pillar 1 proposals.
The plan has three pillars and the first pillar looks at “freeing up land for urban development, including removing unnecessary planning barriers”.
This includes proposals such as:
- Introducing new housing growth targets for councils in places like Auckland, Wellington, Rotorua and New Plymouth and making them “enable 30 years of feasible housing capacity in their district plans”
- Strengthen the intensification requirements for councils in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch
- Provide more mix use across urban environments (for example, having a cafe near people’s homes)
- Stop councils from imposing rural-urban boundary lines in planning documents
- Investigate ways councils can plan for 50 years of growth (instead of 30) and be more responsive to private plan changes
- Stop councils from having minimum floor area or balcony requirements
- Make the MDRS optional for councils
The discussion document is open for public submissions until August 17.
Bishop says the discussion document is a “critical step” in shaping a system that “finally puts housing supply, economic growth, and common sense at its core”.
“We are not interested in tinkering. We are building a planning system where housing growth is not just allowed - it’s expected. Where councils are accountable for delivering capacity, not blocking it.”
‘Overly restrictive’
The Labour Party has called the Government's new power to override council decisions an “overreach”.
Labour’s local government spokesperson Tangi Utikere says councils know their regions and cities best.
“Chris Bishop deciding that plans made by local communities are overly restrictive without any evidence to back it up is wrong," Utikere says.
"New Zealand is not a sandpit for Chris Bishop to play in.”
13 Comments
Yes, I do wish Bishop would be more specific - in other words what "line" in what "plan" is he referring to that necessitates this type of broad power to amend local decisions?
Is it AKL's rural/urban boundary specifically? If so, have the guts to say it. So AKLers who might be affected can comment.
It's obvious that their RMA changes are behind where they thought they would be - so they have to revert to draconian measures meantime.
People making purchasing decisions today, do so based on what the plan says today. For them to have to make these decisions 'blind' to what a Minister might dictate in the future - really goes against the grain.
Kate what do you propose then ?
this country continues to live beyond it means and the electorate continues to vote in who is going to continue allowing living beyond our means.
when will tough decisions ever be accepted ?
As a country we must either cut spending ( unacceptable to voters ) or grow revenues, there are a myriad of council rules preventing the later,
There are many ways to grow revenue - aside from house building. And of course, China recently over-built. And anyway, they (the government) seem to be pushing this because (they say) we have housing shortages. Not being 'sold' as a way to collect more tax revenue.
And in answer to the question - I think we have to expand the tax base. Mentioned some of the possible ways here and what they might bring in by way of new revenue;
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/133744/what-do-you-get-when-yo…
Kate that’s just redividing the cake that’s already too small, or put another way taking money off one group of productive people so another group can continue be unproductive.
Yep. Need the land tax and reduce income tax. Punish lazy speculation. Reward productive effort.
No, it's setting us up for what is inevitable/to come. Everyone - working, not working, retired, parenting... every NZ adult gets the same amount; a minimum income. Many ways to pay for it - the biggest contributor being the end of targeted social welfare
While not in the same announcement, he has made comments in a number of other interviews that high density must be allowed in catchment of rail stations in Auckland, and has noted the council does not allow for this in a number of locations you might expect. He has been vocal around the rejection of a recent high-density development adjacent to the new K'road station in particular (it seems he is the only party member who sees any benefit to rail orientated developments).
I haven't seen any comment on the rural boundary, or other areas so can't add anything there... who knows what else they have in mind...
There's only room for a simple ideology in those minds.
'else' is unlikely.
The joke is that what they want will never happen. Events are breaking over their heads in multiple layers - but as stated, they haven't got what it takes to see that.
Nor, it appears, have others.
At the heart of this is a question of democracy: are we to accede to experts, who are not elected, in shaping our cities?
If we do, isn't that like submitting to a priestly class, where we must take it on faith that they are right?
Some of the pretty dire previous fashions in planning* have given rise to the perception outside the profession that it is politicised, based in imported doctrine that precludes engaging meaningfully with the wishes of residents, while seemingly ignoring both inconvenient information and, sometimes, reality.
This looks a good idea, at least superficially, where national-level representatives get to pry the pork-barrel out of the hands of local government politicians and staff if the manifestos get too ridiculous and antidevelopment.
*I'd submit vertical streets, suburban dormitory sprawl and Canberra as starts...
Actually the question is simple: Will this be appropriate in the future?
Built infrastructure lives 50-100 years. Well before that time, fossil energy has left us. So the question is: Can this be maintained, beyond fossil energy?
And the answer for cities, is NO (remnant pockets maybe, but that's all)
Food production per head will be paramount - reflecting solar (energy) acreage per head. On real-time solar, cities are unmaintainable. And that trend - increasing entropy - is happening already.
Fools in every sense.
that decision of ACC not to approve the K Road high rise has pissed them off...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/insanity-minister-chris-bishop-v-au…
- Stop councils from imposing rural-urban boundary lines in planning documents
Oh yeah.....
Be very clear - the dominant System subsumes all others in an effort to continue.
The dominant System was Economic Growth. By definition, it was temporary. But what we are watching in this mob, is the lackeys of it - the touts and the hucksters (look what Bishop did prior - tout/huckster).
But it doesn't even need parried from here on - it's doomed of its own accord. LGs won't be allowed to exceed debt thresholds - by ratepayers if not by banks. Entropy will take more and more of the surplus energy, until it takes it all (maintenance will take all there is). And populations are about to reduce - perhaps very quickly.
Stand back and look - and the planet is imploding. That wave will wash most assumptions away. Including theirs.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.