A concept drawing of plans for 81 new homes in Beach Haven which locals are objecting to. Illustration / Supplied
A concept drawing of plans for 81 new homes in Beach Haven which locals are objecting to. Illustration / Supplied
EDITORIAL
The housing intensification of metropolitan centres in New Zealand has gathered pace with not-in-my-back-yard (nimby) resistance inevitably and justifiably rising in areas such as Ōrewa and Beach Haven.
The Government, National and many others pressed local authorities to allow construction, as of right, up to three homes of upto three storeys on most sites in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch, and the rising rooflines have been matched by residents’ tensions.
Under the law changes - supported by both Labour and National, remember - developers were given more flexible height-to-boundary standards as well as greater building coverage, the right to create dwellings with smaller private outlook spaces and reduced yard setbacks, particularly front yards.
As we pointed out in October last year, central government interest in fast-tracking the growth of New Zealand’s largest and fastest-growing cities was going to put the squeeze on some places and people. In Auckland, this situation has been exacerbated by the council attempting to ring-fence “heritage” areas to protect their aesthetic value as “special character areas”. This has pushed the focus into areas such as Ōrewa and Beach Haven.
West Hoe Heights development in Orewa where developers are seeking consent for an increase in housing intensification. Photo / Alex Burton
Oscar Sims, from the Coalition for More Homes, told the Herald this week the group would generally prefer developments happen closer to a city centre and that we build “up” more than we build “out”. “But more housing supply will make housing more affordable,” he said.
And there’s the fend-off for objectors. Councils will say they were forced into this situation by central government. The Government will point out it had the approval of the major Opposition party. All parties will say there was a public demand that something was done about the crisis-level lack of affordable housing.
For now, it does appear that Government intervention in the housing crisis is having an impact. The problem for many existing neighbourhoods is that the impact is months of disruptive construction of shade-inducing townhouses and apartment developments leaning over boundary walls. Unchecked, developments will continue until the market is sated enough to be no longer profitable, potentially leaving late runners high, dry and wanting for purchasers.
Residents have every right to raise their concerns. Intrusive developments may reduce property values in some affected areas. The not-in-my-backyard objections have been forced on areas by concessions to other residents’ appeals that intensification doesn’t occur in their backyards.
These developments are fully compliant and in line with Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan, the Government’s National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and changes to the Resource Management Act, which all support far denser cities than in many existing suburbs. But that doesn’t make it okay.
Sure, the electorate wanted something to be done about the chronic shortage of affordable housing but the bludgeon-style measures being foisted on communities are likely to lead downstream to stretched resources, strained infrastructure, and simmering resentment among put-upon residents.
It will be little wonder when nimby objections give way to “bananas” (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) or even “cave” dwellers (citizens against virtually everything).
