Housing debate is back, but councillors told to ignore public pressure
Wednesday, 31 January 2024
Public pressure is ramping up over the council’s most significant housing decision since 2000, but legal advice warns councillors to disregard their constituents’ views.
A vote on March 14 will determine the shape of Wellington for decades, by regulating where houses can be upzoned. In the lead-up, the Wellington City Council will receive weekly reports with recommendations from the independent panel, a group of eight experts who heard hundreds of submissions last year.
Upzoning has been hotly contested at council for years, and the debate has been rekindled by the upcoming decision. A City for People has relaunched its campaign for more housing.
But legal advice from barrister Nick Whittington warned councillors not to lightly change the panel’s recommendations or take on board public pressure.
The council had a “quasi-judicial” role, meaning extra information ‒ including advocacy from residents ‒ would be unlawful to consider unless it was presented at the hearings.
Councillors had to keep an open mind, meaning they needed to be “more vigilant than usual” about their public comments, Whittington wrote.
Jesse Richardson from A City for People said the process around councillors not being allowed to consider political pressure seemed strange, given the importance of the decision.
“This is something that affects absolutely everyone.”
Almost 3000 people gave their views on the Spatial Plan after A City for People campaigned for growth in 2020; in comparison, just 494 submitted on the District Plan.
Councillor Rebecca Matthews, who is known for her YIMBY (pro-housing) stance, said she had her “eyes open” to the legal advice, but thought it was quite risk averse.
“I’m going to be looking to the recommendations and using my judgment about whether they meet the future needs of the city, and working with staff to change them if they don’t.”
Councillors were expecting the recommendations to be more conservative than the draft approved in 2021 ‒ Ben McNulty said that public submitters had been “overwhelmingly looking to roll back from the council’s position”.
On the other side of the table, Diane Calvert did not believe it was the right time for the council to decide on the District Plan at all, given the problems with water infrastructure facing the city.
Painting “some pretty colours on a map” in terms of zoning would not be enough to get more housing built given the infrastructure constraints of water and electricity, she said.
Matthews disagreed. “There is always a reason people will put up around why we shouldn’t zone for the housing we need, I’ve heard all 999 of them. There is no good reason.”
A City for People were campaigning for high-density housing to be allowed near more transit routes, the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) three-by-three townhouses to be allowed in most suburbs and the biggest increases in density to come from the city centre.
Elena Wood, 21, a law student involved in the campaign through Generation Zero, said the coalition’s points could still be adopted because they had been discussed at the hearings.
“[Councillors are] free to have regard to our asks as long as they went before the panel.”
Richardson, 22, said the vote was the key decision for determining whether Wellington became more affordable housing-wise or continued on its trajectory of spiralling rents.
“If we miss this opportunity, we're going to see the current situation continue into the future. So it's really important that we get this action point right.”
The asks for the campaign were reasonable and normal compared to other cities in New Zealand like Auckland, he said.
“We’re not looking to make sweeping changes, we’re just looking to allow more houses so people can live comfortably.”
What do the leading by-election candidates think of the campaign?
A City for People has five asks for the council:
Raise building height limits in the city centre or remove them all together.
Increase what’s considered “walkable” from 10 minutes to 15 minutes.
Recognise that the Johnsonville train line and the Newtown bus route are “mass-rapid transit” routes.
Apply the Medium Density Residential Standards consistently across the whole city.
Keep special character areas the same size agreed to in the Spatial Plan.
The leading two candidates in the Pukehīnau/Lambton ward by-election are independent Karl Tiefenbacher and Green-endorsed Geordie Rogers. If elected, one of them would be sworn in at the end of February, just in time for the District Plan vote on March 14.
Karl Tiefenbacher:
Tiefenbacher wanted to make clear that he was keeping an open mind. He wanted quality and affordable development in the CBD, but did not give his view on height limits.
On walkable catchments, he noted that in the region, Porirua and Lower Hutt had taken different interpretations of what was walkable. “Wellington is an enjoyable walkable city where many residents take public transport. But it’s also very hilly with sometimes extreme weather,” he said.
Neither the Johnsonville line nor the Newtown bus route seemed particularly rapid, Tiefenbacher said.
On the MDRS, he said “one size doesn’t fit all” and Wellington’s topography meant many people were sceptical about nationwide planning rules.
The existing character areas covered a relatively small area of the city, Tiefenbacher said, and the areas recommended by council staff in the Spatial Plan followed “careful analysis”.
Geordie Rogers:
Rogers is the president of Renters United, one of the groups behind the campaign. He supported all of the asks from City for People.
The upcoming District Plan vote was the “most important tool the council has for making sure the council doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the past” in terms of low housing supply and underinvesting in pipes, Rogers said.
By zoning for more housing within the existing city’s footprint, rather than expanding into greenfields — unused land — the city could invest more in the pipes it already had rather than having to pay for new ones.
The asks were not about extreme, high-density everywhere, Rogers said. Keeping the MDRS would mean lower-scale developments which worked for the local community.
“At this point, anyone saying we should zone for less or focus more on quality isn’t grappling with how much of a crisis we’re in. Many people would never be able to own a home if we continue like this.”