Making it easier to build a granny flat makes sense - but it's no solution to a housing crisis
First published on
Building a basic 70-square-metre granny flat will cost between NZ$200,000 and $300,000.
Photo:
123rf
As part of its
resource management reforms
, the government will soon allow "super-sized granny flats" to be built without consent - potentially adding 13,000 dwellings over the next decade to provide "families with more housing options".
This represents genuine progress in reducing regulatory barriers. But the scale of the housing crisis means we have to ask whether incremental reforms can deliver meaningful change.
The numbers provide important context. Against current consenting rates of 40,000 to 50,000 new dwellings per year, those projected 70-square-metre granny flats represent a 2.6 percent increase in housing supply.
In Auckland, where housing pressure is most acute, 300 additional units might be built annually. For some, that's likely to be useful. But for a country already facing a housing crunch, it's insignificant.
The numbers also reveal who can participate in this proposed solution.
Building a basic 70-square-metre granny flat will cost between NZ$200,000 and $300,000. Add site works, utility connections and mandatory licensed building practitioner supervision, and total project costs will be closer to the upper end of that range.
At current interest rates, financing $250,000 requires approximately $480 weekly in loan payments. While rents of $500-$600 per week are achievable in urban markets, these thin margins assume optimal conditions.
For property owners with existing equity, this presents a viable investment. For those seeking affordable housing - young families, essential workers, recent immigrants - the benefits remain largely theoretical.
This dynamic illustrates a persistent challenge in market-based housing solutions: policies intended to improve affordability often primarily
benefit those with capital to deploy
.
Each granny flat requires full residential infrastructure - water, wastewater and stormwater connections.
The development contributions - fees councils charge on new builds to fund infrastructure - will help fund network upgrades. But New Zealand already faces a $120-185 billion water infrastructure deficit over the next 30 years, just to fix existing systems.
The challenge is particularly acute in established suburbs where these units are most likely to appear.
Parts of Christchurch serviced by vacuum sewers already operate at capacity. Auckland's combined sewer areas face overflow risks during heavy rainfall. Wellington's ageing pipes struggle with current demand.
Adding thousands of dispersed infill units to stressed networks poses genuine engineering challenges that funding alone cannot solve.
Transport infrastructure faces similar pressures. With minimum parking requirements axed across the nation, these new granny flats will likely increase on-street parking demand and local traffic.
While some granny flat residents may rely on public transport or active modes, New Zealand's car ownership rates - 837 vehicles per 1,000 people - suggest most will own vehicles.
International experience offers instructive parallels.
California's 2017 Accessory Dwelling Unit legislation provides the closest comparison. After removing similar regulatory barriers, California saw permits increase from 1,000 in 2016 to 13,000 in 2019.
However, construction costs and infrastructure constraints limited actual completions to roughly 60 percent of approved units.
Australian cities report similar patterns. Despite permissive regulations in many areas, only 13-23 percent of suitable properties actually added secondary dwellings. High construction costs and infrastructure limitations proved more binding than regulatory constraints.
Closer to home, Auckland's experience with minor dwellings under the Unitary Plan suggests cautious optimism. Since 2016, the city has averaged 300-400 secondary dwelling consents annually where permitted. The number of units actually constructed is unknown.
Allowing one-storey detached 70-square-metre units without building consent may increase this modestly. But they are unlikely to dramatically accelerate production given persistent cost and capacity constraints.
The policy's benefits flow primarily to existing property owners.
They will gain new development rights without competitive tender or public process. While perhaps justified by broader housing benefits, it's worth acknowledging this is a form of wealth transfer.
Granny flats typically add roughly their construction cost to property values, providing capital gains alongside rental income potential.
For renters, benefits depend on how many units actually materialise and at what price point. Secondary units often rent at 20-30 percent below comparable standalone houses due to their size and backyard location.
This could meaningfully expand options for singles and couples. But families requiring larger accommodation will see limited benefits.
The policy's design constraints also tell us what kind of urban density is acceptable. Single-storey height limits, two-metre boundary setbacks and standalone requirements essentially mandate the least efficient form of intensification.
Units could share walls and services, and two-storey designs that use less land could be permitted.
Instead, the granny flat exemption favours the one configuration that maintains suburban aesthetics while delivering minimal extra housing.
The granny flat exemption exemplifies New Zealand's approach to housing challenges: acknowledging a crisis while implementing modest responses.
Despite severe shortfalls in housing supply, the medium-density development common in comparable countries remains largely unrealised. An estimated 180,000 households could be accommodated through comprehensive densification.
There are genuine benefits worth acknowledging, of course.
The exemption reduces bureaucratic barriers, enables some additional housing and gives property owners new options.
The question isn't so much whether the new policy should be embraced. But rather whether the government is willing to complement it with larger changes the housing crisis demands.
This story originally appeared in the
Conversation
.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
The House: Parliamentary Week Achieves Two Out Of Three Goals
, Editor: The House While Parliament's week was dominated by its final event - Thursday's debate on the report from the Privileges Committee into a haka performed in the chamber - the rest of the week focussed on other business that, while more mundane, was still worthy of note. The Government appeared to have three objectives for this week in the house. Crucial to the administration's continuance, the first goal was to successfully complete the initial debate on the budget. The long initial budget debate could no longer dribble on over weeks, so the house spent six hours of the week completing the second reading debate, which is the first debate a budget gets. The reading was accomplished and so the Government continues. This may sound silly, but a Government cannot survive, if the house votes against its budget. Agreeing to vote for budget and taxation bills are the 'supply' portion of the 'confidence and supply' agreement that is the foundation of any coalition agreement. The budget focus now turns to select committees and what is called 'Scrutiny Week', when ministers appear before various subject committees to defend their budget plans. Scrutiny Week begins on 16 June. Slow seconds A second objective was possibly not in earlier plans for this week - to finally polish off the bills originally slated for completion two weeks ago during budget week urgency. Then, the Leader of the House had asked the house to accord urgency for 12 bills the Government hoped to progress through 30 stages of parliamentary debate. The plan was ambitious and it did not succeed. Despite day-long sittings until midnight Saturday (when urgency must end), only two bills were completed, others were untouched, and 13 stages were unfinished or unstarted. This week's plan for the house had MPs returning to the well for more of the same. Just like last time, progress was at a snail's pace. After quite a few hours, the Government had slugged its way through just a few more stages. The plan was slowed to a crawl by bills' committee stages (formally known as the Committee of the Whole House). Committee stages are a crucial way for MPs to publicly interrogate the minister in charge of a bill. With patience, they can tease out a lot about both a government's development of legislation and its intended real-world impacts. Because the committee stage has no set duration, it is also a way for the opposition to make the Government really work for progress. The Government did achieve progress on the bills left incomplete from budget week, but again, it was probably not what was hoped for. They will need to come back yet again in three weeks to have a third crack. The Opposition is showing itself to be quite effective at the filibuster. The Government's third objective was to have the debate on the recent Privileges Committee Report on three Te Pāti Māori MPs done by the week's end. As Leader of the House Chris Bishop said in re-initiating the debate: "My encouragement would be for everybody to finish this debate today. "Have a robust debate, but let's end this issue once and for all, and deal with the issue and get back to the major issues facing this country." That wish was fulfilled with apparent agreement from across the house. As 6pm neared, the MP who eventually moved that a vote be taken was Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi. The frankly fascinating debate on the report will be reported separately. - RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Māori, Pacific removed from extra education funding priorities
The Tertiary Education Commission warns it doesn't have enough money to cover enrolment growth next year. Photo: AFP The government will remove extra funding for Māori and Pacific enrolments in vocational courses, and trim funding for workplace training. The Tertiary Education Commission told institutions this week it was "reprioritising a small amount - approximately 8 percent - of learner component funding towards provider-based delivery rates, through the removal of Māori and Pacific learners as an eligible category". The weightings for Māori and Pacific enrolments were worth $152 for each student enrolling in work-based level 1-2 certificates and courses at levels 3-6, and $364 per student in non-degree level 7 courses. However, the $1327 weighting for disabled students and students with low prior educational achievement would continue. The payments were added to subsidies for courses offered by polytechnics and private providers, ranging from $6584 for humanities and business courses to nearly $11,786 for health, science, engineering and agriculture, and $19,753 for special agriculture. The commission said funding for work-based training and education would drop 10 percent, while also repeating warnings from earlier in the year that it would not have enough money to cover enrolment growth next year . "Current forecasts indicate the demand for funding will be greater than what we have available to allocate," it said. "Given the multi-year nature of much education and training, we will need to prioritise our future investment." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer on the longest suspension in Parliament
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii This week, Parliament took the unprecedented step of suspending both Te Pāti Māori leaders - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi - for 21 days. Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended for seven days - but had also been punished with a 24-hour suspension on the day over a haka all three had performed in Parliament, against the Treaty Principles Bill, in November. It is against the rules of the House for members to leave their seats during a debate - which all three did. Ngarewa-Packer told Saturday Morning that the 21-day suspension, which was seven times harsher than any previous sanction an MP has faced, was not proportionate. "I think the backlash from the public, nationally and internationally, validates that," she said. Previously, the longest suspension for an MP had been three days, given to the former prime minister Robert Muldoon for criticising the speaker in the 1980s. While New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said the duration of the suspension would have been lessened if the Te Pāti Māori MPs had apologised, Ngarewa-Packer said that was never requested by the Privileges Committee. "What we have here is a situation where, and some are calling it Trumpism, we've been a lot more specific - we have an Atlas agenda that has not only crept in, it's stormed in on the shores of Aotearoa and some may not understand what that means, but this is just the extension of the attack on the treaty, on the attack on Indigenous voices. "We made the point the whole way through when we started to see that they weren't going to be able to meet us halfway on anything, even a quarter of the way, on any of the requests for tikanga experts, for legal experts when we knew the bias of the committee." Ngarewa-Packer added that the Privileges Committee process was not equipped to deal with the issue. "We hit a nerve and we can call it a colonial nerve, we can call it institutional nerve... "I think that this will be looked back on at some stage and say how ridiculous we looked back in 2025." Ngarewa-Packer also added that the language from Peters during the debate on Thursday was "all very deliberate" - "and that's what we're contending with in Aotearoa". "Everyone should have a view but don't use the might of legislation and the power to be able to assert your racism and assert your anti-Māori, anti-Treaty agenda." Peters had taken aim at Waititi on Thursday as "the one in the cowboy hat" and "scribbles on his face" in reference to his mataora moko. Rawiri Waititi. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii He said countless haka have taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. "They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they?" Peters added that Te Pāti Māori were "a bunch of extremists" and that "New Zealand has had enough of them". "They don't want democracy, they want anarchy," he said. "They don't want one country, they don't want one law, they don't want one people." Winston Peters. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.