Firing squads, lethal injections: all the hyperbole from Auckland’s intensification vote

Sunday, 28 September 2025

In what may have been the biggest intervention since the formation of the supercity, Auckland’s councillors have acceded to intensification legislation by allowing for 15-storey apartments in the central “leafy” suburbs - but it didn’t happen quietly, reports Jonathan Killick.

“We want good planning, not planning where everybody is living on top of each other and looking in each other’s windows,” said Howick councillor Sharon Stewart.

She was far from the only elected official at a meeting on Thursday to deride an apparent future where villas and manicured lawns will make way for high rise housing and terraced townhouses.

“People on the ground will see all these properties developed to the max, trees flattened … and with no parking on site all the neighbours are inconvenienced,” echoed Albany councillor Wayne Walker.

Fiery scenes erupted as councillors debated progressing with Plan Change 120 - a city-wide zoning plan that will see 2 million additional homes, largely in the central isthmus.

If councillors hadn’t voted to progress with that, they would have been stuck with Plan Change 78, which otherwise would have allowed for a blanket three dwellings of three storeys right across Auckland.

Ultimately what they have voted for is that zoning for 10 to 15 storey apartment buildings in the central suburbs, especially near train lines.

But not before Waitematā councillor Mike Lee said it was a threat to the “quiet enjoyment” of his city centre constituents.

“It’s not just the heritage being destroyed, it’s the security and wellbeing of people living in those homes, knowing that at any time a developer could come along and put up a tower and block their view.”

Albert-Eden’s Julie Fairey noted the concern for property rights but said “you have to actually own property to have those rights, and many can’t afford to, and they’re moving away.”

Waitākere’s Shane Henderson said homes enabled by the plan would give the next generation a “fair chance”.

“First home buyers have a chance, renters get lower rents, and those struggling to get a house get a roof over their head,” he said.

But Mike Lee asked his fellow councillors to consider the ninth century Byzantines, recalling that Emperor Theophilos of Constantinople tore down the palace of his brother-in-law for blocking the light.

“I think we could take an example from that,” he said.

Yet, meeting chair Richard Hills said he had another Theo in mind; his 3-year-old son who he wanted one day to be able to afford a home in Auckland.

'Yes, it will look like quite a lot of change … but it puts capacity where the infrastructure is.'

Violent language and accusations of ‘hearsay’

“We are where we are” was the mantra among councillors like Hills who supported the plan, pointing out that it was central government that had brought them to this point.

On the one hand, councillors agreed they wanted to be rid of MDRS, a planning instrument allowing three dwellings of three storeys even in flood zones, which had been legislated for with bi-partisan support.

Said Hills: “We are now 971 days past the floods … since then [the community] are totally bewildered we are still building in flood plains.”

But for some, the alternative of an equivalent 2 million high rise homes, as legislated for in August by RMA Minister Chris Bishop, was equally unpalatable.

Said Waitākere councillor Ken Turner: 'I can hear people in West Auckland screaming 'would you put your head in a gas oven just because someone told you to’?”

Howick councillor Maurice Williamson called it a choice between “a lethal injection and a firing squad”, prompting an uproar of “point of order” and calls from the chair to “stop the violent language”.

Williamson: “It’s a metaphor for goodness sake.”

Albert-Eden councillor Christine Fletcher wasn’t prepared to accept a binary choice, putting up an amendment calling for a three month delay to allow for great master planning of where intensification should go, and crucially, time to negotiate.

“All I’ve been told is ‘no, you’ll be sent to planning prison’,” she said, suggesting she had obtained independent legal advice that the council had the opportunity to “push back”.

“And, I detect from people who have contacted me from Parliament that there is the desire to make this workable.”

Hills then surprised the room by saying that in fact he had spoken to Bishop that morning and the indication was any delay would be met with intervention.

A riled Fletcher said Bishop ought to appear before councillors, all of whom were “entitled to hear from him”.

Returned Hills: “I wouldn’t know the mechanism to have Bishop Wizard of Oz to us here.”

But Fletcher suggested Hills was asking councillors to vote based on “hearsay” and said the debate had become “Chinese whispers”.

That sparked a response from Fairey: “You’re basically accusing them of lying and that’s pretty serious.”

Even mayor Wayne Brown, famously opposed to interference from Wellington, cautioned that Bishop would have the final say.

“Just kicking the can down the road because you don’t want to decide today is not serving the interest of Auckland, it’s just dithering.”

Ultimately, Fletcher’s amendment failed, and the motion to progress the plan change carried, 18 votes to five.

A dismayed councillor John Watson said that next time he was in Bishop’s Wellington home of suburb of Eastbourne, he would ask for a meeting.

“We may as well go to Mr Bishop and say why don’t you just take over the planning of Auckland? Then at least we won’t have the political accountability.”

Who will have the final say?

With the vote having coincided with local elections, Bishop’s actions may have enabled progressive councillors to sell the debate to their uncertain constituents - framing it not as between the status quo and an infill future, but between two difficult options.

As North Shore councillor Chris Darby put it, it’s a choice between “which dog breed is going to bite us the hardest and longest, and which one will give us rabies.

“But, I'm not in the camp of defying the government and rarking a minister to the point that they say 'I'll move into town and do it for you'.”

The question is, how much of National’s political capital has Bishop spent in getting Auckland Council across the line?

Said Williamson: “All I can say is that he is a very brave politician because Labour stopped short of saying they wanted house prices to go down.”

While a poll held live during the debate by The Post showed 60% support for intensification, the other 40% in opposition are likely to have been among those holding meetings and lobbying elected reps in recent weeks. They’re the established landowners who tend to turn out to vote.

Despite supporting the proposal, even Brown suggested the Government was “in a bit of trouble” which may yet provide the opportunity to get it to “pull it back a bit”.

And, within five minutes of the vote having been cast, Bishop’s office had put out a statement saying that Auckland Council would be “the final decision-maker”.

“It is important to note that Auckland Council may choose to accept any hearings panel recommendations, or not … this differs from plan changes in Wellington and Christchurch where the minister was the final decision-maker.”

Walker appeared to smell weakness: “The government is vulnerable if Auckland stands up to them, but our leadership is gutless in my view.

“I hope that a new council [after the elections] will be prepared to stand up to make a change.”

On the other hand, Henderson said that if anything he would be asking Bishop to take another look at reducing character housing.

'They set up wealthy areas of the central city to operate as gated communities.'

While the councillors’ votes have been cast, there’s still expected to be 18 months of arguments to follow with public submissions to open in November, followed by hearings before an independent panel.

For owners of character housing it will mean the loss of 6000 character homes out of 20,120 region wide.

For Hills it’s a chance at a future Auckland that recognises flood risk and focuses its population along its transport links.

“Some people will be very excited about this decision, others will find it hard. Change is hard.”