What Chris Bishop's decision on Plan Change 14 means for Christchurch
Where will future housing growth in Christchurch go? Will new houses be built on the outskirts of the city, or close to the centre? A decision by RMA reform minister Chris Bishop made earlier this month goes some way to answering these questions.
Bishop rejected the majority of changes Christchurch City Council had wanted to make to its district plan (called Plan Change 14), which were an alternative to changes that had been recommended by the city's independent hearings panel in 2024. The council had accepted the majority of the panel's recommendations in December 2024, including building heights of 14 metres in all commercial centres, higher limits in certain areas, higher buildings in walking catchments around shopping centres and removing character protections in some areas.
But, the council proposed alternatives for 20 of the changes it did not accept, which had to be approved by the RMA minister. One was having ' sunlight access ' as a factor when considering new housing; essentially saying that because of Christchurch's lower latitude compared to cities in the North Island, buildings shouldn't be allowed to be built as high because they would block sunlight for neighbouring homes. Campaigners against the nationwide building height increase in urban areas used the slogan 'stop daylight robbery'.
The council proposed lower heights of buildings in Christchurch than the MDRS (Medium Density Residential Standards) mandates, to make the amount of sun access even. Bishop rejected this alternative request, as well as limits to high-density specifications in the suburbs of Riccarton, Linwood and Hornby, which all have big populations and commercial centres as well as historic housing, and therefore good potential for intensification but also residents with concerns about growth. However, he approved three of the suggestions, including further intensification around designated suburban centres like Barrington in Spreydon.
Christchurch City Council had initially rejected the previous government's efforts to make intensification rules consistent across the country through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) in 2022, wanting a custom approach rather than a national standard. However, despite multiple time extensions, Christchurch eventually had to go through the process of adopting policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD, which focus on intensification in urban areas, as well as the MDRS. 'Together, these decisions will enable a greater level of development in and around Christchurch City's urban centres,' said Bishop in a press release announcing his decision.
'This doesn't feel like the best outcome [for our city],' said Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger in a press release responding to Bishop's decision. 'In putting these decisions forward to the government, we obviously wanted to get all of our alternative recommendations approved. So, to only have three of them get the tick is a kick in the guts.'
Sara Templeton, a councillor for the Heathcote area who is also running for mayor, said the minister's decision was not unexpected, and now it was time to get on with it. Christchurch needed more housing to accommodate future growth, she said. 'Christchurch is forecast to increase by 30,000 people in the next decade – that's the size of Timaru,' she said. 'We can't keep sprawling onto the productive soils around Christchurch.'
Residents associations were supportive of Christchurch City Council having a custom district plan, and disappointed by Bishop's decision. 'If there is a housing supply shortage, it's probably in those sorts of properties in the inner city, which are slowly disappearing,' said Tony Simons, a representative of a group of residents associations, as reported by RNZ. 'What Chris Bishop has decided is to let developers build what they want, pretty much where they want, and that's a shame.'
The urbanist group Greater Ōtautahi supported Bishop's decision, saying the changes would allow walkable communities in areas like Riccarton and Papanui; much of the growth is around shopping centres. 'Allowing more homes where people want to live is an important step for the future of Ōtautahi. This means that people are able to live with dignity in a home that is more affordable,' said Greater Ōtautahi chairperson M Grace-Stent in a press release.
The whole process raises questions about how local and central government interact, and whether the government is truly embracing 'localism'. 'My preference is for central government to let local gov know the outcomes it wants and hold local government to account for heading in that direction,' Templeton said. This would allow councils like Christchurch to make sure a more 'strategic' approach was adopted as the city intensified housing, ensuring new housing was concentrated in areas where amenities and public transport already existed.
'When we sprawl, it increases rates for residents over time,' said Templeton, who wants transport planning to be aligned with housing intensification. 'Growth in areas without transport means more cars on the outskirts, more driving through neighbourhoods, more traffic at rush hour.'
Christchurch City Council hasn't approved the MDRS, and currently has until the end of the year to do so. However, that looks likely to change; a bill revising the current Resource Management Act (RMA) was introduced with a provision that councils could opt out of the MDRS if they had provided for 30 years of housing growth in their district or unitary plans. Followin g Auckland Council's decision not to approve intensification around rapid public transport corridors like the City Rail Link stations, the environment select committee recommended amendments to the bill that would still allow Auckland and Christchurch to opt out of the MDRS, but require them both to follow 'bespoke' processes that would mandate more intensification around urban centres and public transport hubs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Christopher Luxon won't discuss poor polls with caucus, Labour not saying anything about tax policy
Luxon said: 'We discuss our internal polling from time to time with our caucus, which is very normal practice, but I'm not focused or polls or talking about myself, I'm focused on New Zealanders and making sure we have the right long-term plan in place.' Luxon said. Luxon confirmed caucus was still receiving internal polls. 'New Zealanders understand we've gone through the biggest recession in the last 30 years. We've got a big Covid hangover as we've seen from the Treasury report last week, we've had some difficult challenging circumstances particularly since April with respect to the tariff situation. 'I think you're seeing across New Zealand - get out of Wellington, you go to the South Island, the primary industries, go to Hawke's Bay, you are seeing good recovery in those parts, but I acknowledge in places like Auckland and Wellington and urban environments it is still pretty tough,' Luxon said. He said things like the InvestmentBoost tax credit and the infrastructure pipeline would lead to a recovery. Chris Bishop said talk of a leadership change was silly. Photo / Mark Mitchell Talk of leadership change 'just silly' - Chris Bishop Senior Minister Chris Bishop said despite the grim polling there was 'no talk' of changing the leader. 'That's just silly. What we're doing as a Government - New Zealand's first three-way coalition government - is working hard to get the economy growing again after years of high inflation, high government spending and high debt,' Bishop said. He said he would 'not even entertain' the idea of a polling threshold at which point National would need to roll its leader. Bishop was one of the National MPs at the heart of a bid to replace then-leader Simon Bridges with Todd Muller in 2020. Like Luxon, Bishop said that the economy had struggled to lift off since US President Donald Trump's announcement of tariffs on Liberation Day in April. Treasury had been forecasting a decent economic recovery before April, but since then, it revised its growth forecasts downwards. The economy is still set to grow, but not as fast. Live GDP estimates from the Reserve Bank suggest the next GDP print will show a quarter of contraction. The threat of tariffs had caused businesses to hold back investment. Bishop said the Government would not make 'reactionary one-off decisions' to pump the polls. 'What we need to do is stick to the course of a long-term economic plan that would set New Zealand up for growth,' he said. He suggested that some of the polling slump was because Labour had no real policy, beyond a promise to repeal things like Three Strikes, the reinstatement of oil and gas exploration, and the future Regulatory Standards Bill. 'It's all easy for Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party to sit off to the side and say life should be better, [but] in their own words, they do not have any policy. 'Life's easy in opposition when you have the luxury of not having any policy... they do not have any policy and they are not planning to release any any time soon,' Bishop said, referring to an admission from Labour finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds that the party did not have any substantive cost of living policy. Labour leader Chris Hipkins on his way into his weekly caucus meeting. Photo / Mark Mitchell Hipkins keeps mum on tax policy Labour leader Chris Hipkins was happy with the polls, saying Labour's numbers had 'grown significantly since the last election. 'We were at 26% at the last election, we're now polling comfortably across the polls in the mid-30s,' Hipkins said. Asked about Labour's lack of policy, Hipkins said, 'they [National] would definitely like more things to attack us on - that's true'. Hipkins said policy would be announced before the election, but he wanted to make sure he could deliver on it. A column by Vernon Small, a former staffer for Labour Revenue Minister David Parker, in the Sunday Star-Times reported Labour's policy council had resolved to support a Capital Gains Tax as the preferred policy for the next election, beating out the other favoured tax, a wealth tax. It now rests with Labour's governing council and the Parliamentary side of the party to decide what to do with the decision as the party puts its 2026 election policy together. Hipkins has committed to campaigning on progressive tax reform, but said the tax policy was 'not yet resolved'. He said he 'would not discuss the internal machinations of the Labour Party', but said a 'consensus is emerging'. He said a wealth tax and a capital gains tax were 'on the table', but would not commit to Labour's traditional policy of excluding taxing any capital gains accrued on the family home. 'When we have a tax policy to announce we will announce it,' Hipkins said. When asked again he said, 'I'm not getting into that because we haven't announced a tax policy'. Eventually, Hipkins said, 'I've always said taxing the family home shouldn't be taxed, but I'm not announcing a policy that we haven't announced'. Hipkins has been reluctant to shape his party's tax discussions by ruling various things in or out. Labour's 2017 commitment to kick its tax policy to a tax working group was guided by the fact that any capital gains tax would exclude the family home. In an earlier press conference, Hipkins would not rule out the Greens' inheritance tax proposal, although he conceded it would be very unlikely Labour would agree to it. Hipkins got into trouble with his party in 2023 and 2024 for his 'captain's call' to kill the wealth tax proposal, a call some members believed was against party rules - although Hipkins and the party leadership dispute this. Hipkins denied his reluctance to personally shape the tax discussion this time around is because he is being extra scrupulous in light of his previous troubles over captain's calls. 'No,' he said, when asked. 'We'll announce a tax policy when we're ready to announce it, not because you keep asking questions about it,' Hipkins said. Minister of Defence Judith Collins said this is the best Cabinet she has served in. Photo / Sylvie Whinray (file) The most enjoyable Cabinet - Judith Collins Former National leader Judith Collins said she 'didn't even see' the polls. 'I'm just too busy doing my job,' she said. Collins said this was 'a really good coalition Government, I love being part of it'. 'I've been in a few Cabinets, let me tell you, and this is the most enjoyable for me,' she said. 'I find the Prime Minister's leadership excellent, he just lets me get on and do the job,' she said. Collins said Luxon was 'absolutely' the right person to lead the Government.
Newsroom
10 hours ago
- Newsroom
Scrapping petrol tax could be transformative. But will it?
Comment: The way we currently get around is unfair, and unhealthy. Some people travel a lot, creating disproportionate harms on people and the planet, such as pollution, injury risk and physical inactivity. Others cannot afford to travel enough, missing out on things that are important, such as catching up with loved ones or healthcare appointments, or end up having to forego expenditure on other important things, such as food. Replacing fuel excise duty (or petrol tax) with electronic road user charges for all vehicles – as announced by Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week, offers an opportunity to transform the way we fund and pay for our transport system in a way that works for people and the planet – by reflecting the true costs imposed when we use the roads. Bishop said 'it isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often'. And on the whole, we agree. We know that those households with the lowest income drive far less (about 100km a week less) but also have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on getting around (16 percent of income compared with 9 percent or higher-income households). Those on lower incomes are also far less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle with cheaper running costs, instead paying the relatively more expensive petrol tax. However, Bishop's proposal represents a narrow view of the harms, or wider costs, of driving to society. It is largely based on the assumption all vehicles should contribute 'fairly' (based on weight and distance travelled) towards road maintenance, operations and improvements. But a pricing structure that also accounts for the costs to our health system of injuries, pollution and physical inactivity caused by the transport system, might also include differential charging for different types of vehicles. For example, we know that SUVs cause more severe injuries to those outside of the vehicle, and while EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, they still contribute to congestion and injury risk. The proposal does suggest that weight, as well as distance travelled, will be factored into pricing; however, it should also consider the damage that heavier and larger vehicles do to people and the environment. A change in the way we are charged for using the roads offers a real opportunity to design a progressive charge that alleviates costs pressures for those already struggling to pay for the driving they need to do, while reducing levels of driving overall. One way to achieve this would be through increasing the rate per km, above a certain amount of kilometres driven. Given the costs involved in running and operating the scheme, and that this needs to be revenue generating for Government, it seems unlikely there will be a reduction in the cost of travel in real terms for everyone. However, if the Government is committed to fairness, it needs to ensure costs don't escalate for those who can least afford it and who have few alternatives. The proposed changes to road user charges are most likely to be successful and acceptable if they are accompanied by investment in public transport, walking and cycling and alongside strategic urban planning that supports local access to the things we all need such as shops, schools and sports grounds. The most straightforward way to ensure that charging for using the roads doesn't force people into situations where they have to forego other essentials, is to ensure that it's easy and safe to get around in other ways, or that we don't need to travel as much. For both fairness and health and wellbeing we need to continue to improve travel options other than driving. Bishop presented this as a new way to fund our roads, but we should be taking a more holistic view – this is an opportunity to think about how we fund our transport system. Using revenue raised to reduce the need to drive can make charging for driving more acceptable. Bishop said, 'This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future proof how we fund our roads for decades to come'. This policy has the potential to be truly transformative and be part of creating a transport system (not just roads) that is fairer, and healthier for everyone. It can be done. The question is, will it?
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Shane Te Pou: We can't spend Government ghost money
There is nothing new here. All the money was already planned for in the Budget. That means no new jobs or economic growth are being delivered that weren't already in the Budget. A Budget after which unemployment rose by 24,000 by June 2025. This isn't a stimulus to the economy because there is no extra investment beyond that already being planned – meaning no extra GDP. It's a Clayton's announcement. Critics urge a genuine, long-term infrastructure strategy, emphasising collaboration and addressing urgent economic and social needs. Photo / Sylvie Whinray Given the fact that 16,000 fewer people are working in construction than this time last year, you would think this would be the ideal time to boost investment. ANZ reported this week that, 'it appears residential builders are giving up on a recovery any time soon'. You would think that now would be an excellent opportunity to build new state housing. Alas, no such announcements were made. As the famous quote goes, ministers are finding that 'winning is easy, governing is hard'. The initial decisions made to cut investment in areas such as ferries, housing and Dunedin Hospital have sapped confidence in the economy. The impact of tax cuts promised at the last election has long since gone. The likelihood of further interest rate cuts is diminishing as inflation creeps towards 3% and above. It's time for a different approach. Our economy, our productivity and our public realm don't benefit when the Government changes long-term infrastructure planning like this. It doesn't help when ministers use infrastructure announcements as a means of political advertising. Chris Bishop claimed he wanted a 'cross-party consensus' on infrastructure, but critics question whether he's truly engaging with a broad range of voices beyond his own. Photo / Sylvie Whinray That's made even harder when the announcements don't mean anything. We need a long-term approach to tackling this problem – one that will work across Parliaments. An approach that doesn't put one form in infrastructure – roads – ahead of everything else. In December last year, Bishop said he genuinely wanted to build a 'cross-party consensus' on how we build infrastructure in New Zealand. That's great in theory, but when your idea of a consensus is everyone agreeing with you, that's not going anywhere. Building a true consensus would involve working with much wider groups. When was the last time Bishop sat down with trade unions to discuss infrastructure? When did he last sit down with child poverty advocates to talk about our housing that puts kids in hospital? New Zealand's economy is struggling. The US President has just slapped 15% tariffs on our exports – and it's our second-biggest export market. We are losing a generation of people who are voting with their feet because they can't see a future here in Aotearoa. Nurses are on strike. Yet our Government is concerned with changing the name on the front of a passport. It's dangerously out of touch with the real needs of New Zealanders. Infrastructure development and renewal can play a key role in restarting the economy. You simply can't re-wrap last year's Christmas presents and present them as new this year. When we invest in New Zealand, we invest in ourselves and we reap the dividends. The Government is pretending to invest right now, dressing up old investments as new. There is a ghost plan for the economy. It's time for a real one.
