KEY POINTS:
Building Minister Shane Jones has rejected claims that a proposed "mega-consent" for would-be home builders will save only a couple of thousand dollars and favour only a few homeowners.
The Government plans to allow developers to apply for multiple consents for buildings of identical design.
Critics claim the move will result in bland, monotonous suburbs full of the same sort of houses.
The consent could save developers of kitset homes a few thousand dollars per dwelling, they say, but those projects are only about 30 per cent of consents applied for each year.
Mr Jones defended the scheme yesterday as a positive first step towards improving housing affordability.
"It seems to us that this is a very good place to start," Mr Jones said.
"What we're trying to do is expedite the consideration of consents, and we are told by local government there is considerable risk and considerable technical difficulty in highly-designed one-off houses.
"People have options. If they are building a house of this nature, this is how we are going to start it off. Who knows? As the refinements are bedded in, there may be scope for further improvements, but all journeys of any distance start with the first step."
Local Government New Zealand president Basil Morrison said that since the new Building Act was introduced, costs and implementation processes for councils and homeowners had steadily increased.
He welcomed the proposed streamlining of the consents system, but said the changes needed to be kept in perspective.
"The building consent costs are a very small part of the overall building cost. These changes will only offer minimal relief to potential buyers in the affordability of new housing.
"Addressing housing affordability is complex and long term. Short term, any initiatives to reduce building compliance costs will benefit both homeowners and local government."
Master Builders Federation chief executive Pieter Burghout agreed with Mr Morrison that consent fees were a small part of the cost of a house.
"It's only going to save maybe $3000 or $4000 at the most and I don't think that's going to make houses in Auckland any more affordable than they were before."
Mr Burghout expected builders would settle on 20 standardised, pre-approved designs.
In Australia and the United States, suburbs had been designed with a mixture of those designs and with the houses placed facing in a variety of directions to avoid a bland, uniform appearance.
Those techniques could double the portfolio to 40 designs.
Builders would also respond to market demand, as most homeowners wanted something different from their neighbours.
"The number of house sales of that type are increasing and the market will fix it of itself," Mr Burghout said.
"You don't necessarily have to have this barrage of standard home-types to get there. If the concept proves worthwhile, we will find group home builders will lodge their plans accordingly, and so the concept has merit."
Mr Jones also rejected claims the scheme would create identikit suburbs, and backed his proposed starter home design competition as one way of preventing that.
"We won't have homogenous, bland suburbs," he said.
"The other thing to bear in mind is that the way in which you introduce diversity and character into a suburb is as much to do with landscaping and trees and the accoutrements people put on their sections."
National Housing spokesman Phil Heatley questioned why would-be homeowners should be encouraged to live in a "Helen-approved starter home".
"Why isn't Labour improving the consent process for every type of home in every neighbourhood?" Mr Heatley said.
