‘Wasted millions of dollars’: Christchurch forced to allow housing intensification

Saturday, 7 June 2025

Housing and RMA Minister Chris Bishop has overruled the Christchurch City Council’s attempt at a bespoke housing development plan.

The Government has overruled the Christchurch City Council’s attempt at a bespoke housing development plan, flying in the face of local decision-making, city representatives say.

It clears the way for greater urban density and taller developments in select suburbs - a win for housing affordability, according to urbanists - but it has left a homeowner advocate concerned the future of his neighbourhood will be “in jeopardy”.

New planning rules connected to Plan Change 14 (PC14) were locked in by Housing and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop on Friday, six months after councillors voted to reject 20 of the independent panel’s recommendations.

PC14 largely seeks to allow people to build three, three storey buildings, in the name of making it easier to boost housing stocks, thereby making housing more affordable.

The council instead proposed alternatives and it was up to Bishop to decide. But only three were accepted on Friday, with three more deferred to later this year.

It was “a kick in the guts” according to mayor Phil Mauger, though Andrei Moore, councillor for Halswell, said it was the council’s “complete balls up” which got them here.

What was rejected?

PC14 is a body of work Christchurch was forced to pick up after the then-Labour government - then with National’s support - proposed a sweeping housing density law change in 2021.

Mayor Phil Mauger says the Government’s decision was “a kick in the guts”, but the council had to accept it.

It largely seeks to allow people to build three, three-storey buildings, in the name of making it easier to boost housing stocks, thereby making housing more affordable.

But not everyone thought they were fit for Christchurch’s needs. The city council - spurred by concerned homeowners, who filled council chambers with placards about how housing intensification would rob them of daylight - pulled the “proverbial finger” at the Government in 2022 and rejected the law change.

Two years on and multiple time extensions later, the council in December last year was voting on just half of PC14 - tackling density and height rules in the four avenues and the heart of select suburbs.

The council unsuccessfully tried to protect the fringe of Riccarton Bush from housing intensification.

Bishop got involved because PC14 is a process led by an independent panel of experts. Over many months, the panel heard the evidence of several hundred individuals, organisations, and the city council itself, weighing these against the requirements of government policy.

It was the expert panel’s recommendations the council voted on in December. Any recommendations the council disagreed with required a council-created alternative based on the same evidence, between which Bishop would decide.

The council did disagree, particularly where it came to qualifying matters (reasons why the council could limit housing intensification in some areas). The council wanted qualifying matters for things like sunlight access, airport noise contours, and for land on the fringe of Riccarton Bush.

The council also wanted greater limits on building heights around Christchurch’s largest suburbs outside of the four avenues - such as limiting buildings in the heart of Hornby to 22m instead of 32m - and to rezone 20 Deans Avenue for mixed use.

High density housing has been approved for Hornby, Riccarton and Papanui within 800m of their commercial centres.

Why was it rejected?

In a breakdown of Bishop’s decisions, he rejected all but three alternatives for lack of evidence or not complying with the Resource Management Act as much as the panel’s recommendation would. Three others were deferred.

He was not convinced sunlight access or any other qualifying matters pitched by the council as alternative recommendations had enough evidence to stack up.

When it came to proposed limits on high density areas around select suburbs, he again said the council lacked evidence.

The only three he approved was a bid for allowing heights of 36m around 25 Deans Ave, aligning the density zoning of two addresses, and keeping local centre intensification precincts (which the council successfully argued would result in better development).

Cr Andrei Moore says the council’s alternatives “weren’t based on any meaningful evidence”.

The three deferred recommendations - on removing heritage protections from Daresbury House and Antonio Hall, and keeping the Piko Residential Character Area - were neither accepted or rejected. He said the second tranche of PC14 decisions would impact the zoning of those areas, so it would be better to wait.

What now?

Developing the plan took the city council several years and in September was estimated to cost the council about $7m in fees by the end of the financial year.

PC14 is expected to cost the council several millions of dollars.

Mark Stevenson, council’s head of planning and consents, said that figure was out of date, with an updated estimate to come on Monday.

But with $5.6m spent as of September, PC14 was millions of dollars “wasted”, according to Andrei Moore, city councillor for Halswell, saying the council made “a complete balls up” of the plan by “scraping the barrel” for excuses to restrict housing intensification.

“Our alternative recommendations weren't based on any meaningful evidence so we shouldn't be surprised the minister has upheld the law,” he said.

He said the council could have unlocked residential areas around the central city like SoMo - a large block of land between Moorhouse Ave and Brougham St - but said instead suburbs will be vulnerable to in-fill, the very thing residents asked the council to prevent.

Moore’s opinion was not shared by most elected members who spoke to The Press on Friday.

Helen Broughton, a Riccarton community board representative with a special interest in planning, criticised his opinion as being against the residents he represents and warned he would “face the music” come election time.

Hornby representative Cr Mark Peters, said the council’s alternative rules were pragmatic proposals for “a tolerable middle ground”.

“We worked incredibly hard to listen to our communities … to have these rejected by the minister is extremely disappointing.”

Mayor Phil Mauger went as far as to call it “a kick in the guts”.

In a statement, he confirmed the minister’s decision was final.

“This plan change has been a huge undertaking for our city, and we’ve said right the way through that we want to get the best outcome we possibly can. This doesn't feel like the best outcome,” he said.

Tony Simons, speaking on behalf of the combined residents’ association, said allowing high and medium density around the boundary of Riccarton Bush put the future of the bush “in jeopardy”.

Meanwhile, M Grace-Stent, chairperson of urbanist group Greater Ōtautahi, believed Bishop’s decisions were a win for housing affordability.

“While PC14 won’t build new houses overnight, this is still a huge step towards alleviating the housing crisis,” Grace-Stent said. “This is another step in Ōtautahi Christchurch’s growth.”

The Government plans to change the RMA in August to allow councils which have not decided on housing intensification plans to potentially opt-out of the plan.

The city council asked Bishop for another extension to the second tranche of PC14 - due in December - but was told no in May.

Stevenson said this meant there would be “little to no opportunity” to further publicly consult beyond consultation PC14 had already gone through.