But in many ways this is all moot, there is an obligation to enact this legislation. The density argument has been won. And for those of us who have been arguing for this for some time, this is a positive outcome. But related arguments connected to good planning and wellbeing are now becoming more urgent.
This context provides a good way to understand the various plan changes, they are both enacting the legislation and seeking to address the various concerns raised using other parts of the "rule book".
So what could our cities look like? The simplest way to understand the key change is that you can now build three homes of three storeys in a section as of right unless there are wider qualifying matters (heritage, for example). But changes go beyond this.
To take the example of Hamilton you can see how they have sought to weave this national direction with their existing ambitions, such as turning Hamilton into a "20-minute city" where daily needs can be easily accessed within suburban centres.
A good way to envisage future urban form is by the new permitted heights and how these are linked to walkable catchments. For instance, in Hamilton's CBD there are no height restrictions, within 800m of the central city the rule is at least six storeys, within 400m of suburban centres it is between three and five storeys, and the rest of the city is three storeys. That is both a huge amount of new housing capacity and represents an attempt to steer development to a better urban form.
They have also introduced new green policies to reduce the impact on the natural environment. For example, they advocate water-sensitive design and rainwater capture tanks to help manage future urban flood risk and improve the water quality of the Waikato River.
There are also new rules about providing trees and on-site landscaping to pre-empt fears of a loss of green infrastructure. They also seek to make footpaths wider to fit in things like separated cycle lanes or stormwater management to reduce the load on water infrastructure.
The weaker part of these plan changes tends to relate to design, which is partially limited due to the rights developers now have. While we could see more innovation with fewer rules, there is a danger in assuming de-regulation automatically provides quality.
However, central and local government could make good design more likely by providing stronger design guidance, giving more power to urban design panels, or funding champions to lead the debate. The Government could also take a stronger leadership role, such as by forming an Aotearoa Design Office to cascade best practice.
We also see in these changes that it is too simplistic to talk of more or less regulation, or even fewer rules being better, rather all public policy displays de-regulatory and re-regulatory impulses, as fewer rules in one area frequently stimulate policy changes elsewhere. This is why, for example, we may see stronger rules on urban design if development is perceived as suboptimal.
Now the density argument is won it redirects us to new challenges and opportunities, however.
How do we get from density to density done well? How do we shift from focusing on the number of new dwellings to also improving well-being and amenity for existing residents?
And more fundamentally, now the supply argument for housing affordability has been implemented, can we focus on reducing housing speculation or the inequitable distribution of our existing housing stock, which has favoured a system where some own many properties and others none?
● Iain White is Professor of Environmental Planning at the University of Waikato.
