'Please build in my backyard', young resident tells Wellington City Council
Wednesday, 4 November 2020
Twenty-year-old Madison McVie says she does not understand NIMBYs.
Talking to Wellington city councillors on Wednesday, the Ngaio resident and university student said she could not comprehend why people would want to stifle growth in Wellington’s suburbs, an initiative she believed would bring more services, more shops and more vibrancy.
NIMBY stands for “Not in my back yard’’ and McVie was talking about Wellington’s draft spatial plan, a housing intensification blueprint which aims to squeeze in tens of thousands of extra people across the city over the next 30 years.
“I just think it is great, so please build more houses in my backyard. I would appreciate that,” she said.
**READ MORE:
* No room at the inn, and you can't head for the hills – welcome to Wellington
* Wellington City councillor calls out property-owning 'NIMBY' colleagues
**
McVie was one of about 30 people who made oral submissions to the council on its draft policy on Wednesday.
The proposal would remove demolition protections for many pre-1930s buildings and allow new builds of at least six storeys in areas close to railway stations and “metropolitan centres”.
It would also set minimum six-storey building heights in the central city.
McVie said she fully supported high-density housing in her backyard. “It is a lovely place to live, so I can’t wait for more people to come and join me.”
But not everyone was as supportive of the proposal.
Brian McKenna questioned why the council was “turning the western suburbs purple”, referring to the colour used to designate areas where six-storey buildings were permitted.
He also noted the government policy guiding the spatial plan allowed for six-storey buildings close to rapid transit stops, not railway stations.
He disputed the Johnsonville rail line, which runs through the western suburbs, qualified as a rapid transit service, which the policy defined as quick, frequent and high-capacity.
Tracy White, who lives in Khandallah, said it appeared unclear whether the western suburbs were fair game for intensification.
“Who knows what a metropolitan area is, because if that is Khandallah, Ngaio and Crofton Downs, well, good, I look forward to more metropolitan services.”
Heritage protection was again a hot topic during the hearings, with only character “sub-areas” spared from the removal of demolition protections under the draft proposal.
While several groups oppose this, 31-year-old Stephanie Cairns told councillors she had lived in several heritage homes in the past decade and they were not all they were cracked up to be.
“I have lived in at least three 20th-century houses that should not be on the rental market. They are just straight-up health hazards.”
She used to think of heritage homes as “really pretty” but quickly discovered living in them was “not a good time”.
One place was a “literal swamp”, while another was a “rat-infested, crumbling … old villa”, Cairns said.
But Historic Places Wellington vice-chair Ben Schrader said heritage had been “demonised” in the debate so far, and pointed out the demolition and construction of buildings contributed significantly to carbon emissions.
“I think you also need to be looking at ways of adaptive re-use of particular buildings in terms of creating a sustainable city.”
Insurance Council of New Zealand chief executive Tim Grafton told councillors it was important they considered where new developments took place.
Building on hillsides, for example, was extremely risky because rebuilding or fixing properties damaged in an earthquake was more expensive and more difficult, Grafton said.