A Resounding "Yes" to Intensification: Councillors Cave-In to Government and Council Pressure
In This Edition: the council "intensification" vote, Metro Bus driven without Aircon or proper vents in Thursday's heat reveals deeper problem, and Te Pātāka community pantry's transfer to new home.
A Resounding “Yes” to Intensification: Councillors Cave into Government and Council Pressure
Housing
Pictured: Ross Gray and Anne Dingwall of the Civic Trust presenting to the council on Wednesday
Wednesday saw the most significant move to shape Christchurch’s future since the creation in 1989 of the Christchurch City Council. A clear majority of 12 councillors and Pauline Cotter deputy mayor and the Phil Mauger mayor voted in favour of notification of Plan Change 14 (PC14). In this article, The Wigram looks in depth not only at the back story and divided community submissions, but also closely at the councillors’ behaviour before the vote and whether they upheld local democracy in the face of considerable pressure.
The Back Story
To the consternation of the Labour government, in September the previous-term’s councillors voted against notifying Plan Change 13 (PC13) - the government’s attempt to introduce medium- and high-density housing to Christchurch. This heralded the imposition of a Crown investigator and former barrister John Hardie, his job being to ensure the council notified a plan.
Until yesterday’s vote, the Council had time to add adjustments - known collectively as “Qualifying Matters” - to the plan. In the intervening 6 months, John Hardie lobbied councillors to vote “Yes” and council workers, including stalwart John Higgins, worked to adjust the plan to account for local concerns, ranging from loss of sunlight, the protection of the Dean’s Bush precinct and the Red Zone corridor to flooding. This presented a mammoth statutory task. The council team prepared in its own estimation 5,000 pages of evidence to justify each QM. More on this later in the article.
A Divided Community Makes Itself Heard
Riccarton Bush-Kilmarnock Residents’ Association Chair Tony Simons favoured “intensification”. “If you vote ‘yes’”, he said, “you are only government administrators”.
“We need city-led intensification, done well.” He was contrasting this to a developer-led model.
“We acknowledge the bowl of dirt, you’ve been given is smaller,” referring to the council’s limited ability to change PC13 through the addition of Qualifying Matters.
About 6-storey buildings, he said it was “really scary…the market will [determine] where this will go.”
Streets would be “clogged with” cars, and that the new rules would “suck life out of the CBD.”
He understood that houses built under the new rules could house 2.5 million people and “see us through” for 70 years, when population growth was only estimated at 500,000.
If the councillors voted “No”, then “your integrity, your mana, will remain intact.”
Picture: Tony Rider (Church Corner Residents’ Association) bottom left; Tony Simons (Riccarton-Bush Kilmarnock Residents’ Association) rear, standing at a community meeting.
Greater Hornby Residents’ Association Mark Duff said “six [stories] is just stupid.” A “Yes” vote would destroy the “community fabric”. 85% of respondents to a survey opposed high density housing going into his suburb, with 76% agreeing that intensity wasn’t working now.
“We need to put high density in the city.”
“Don’t burst the balloon,” he added, before inflating a balloon and letting it fly off across the chamber floor.
After a councillor asked him about the survey respondents’ ages, he replied “most” were “at 35-44”.
Ross Gray and Anne Dingwall of the Christchurch Civic Trust favoured planned intensification, and to adjust the rules based on a moving population target. They also asked where the council’s commitment was to infrastructure.
Finn Jackson favoured a “yes” vote, arguing the city needs “to build big and we need to building well”. A young person, he had witnessed the pitfalls of renting in Christchurch and said voice needed to be given to the poor, renters, among others. Councillor Yani Johanson sparred with Jackson, doubting that building more housing would make them affordable.
Glenn Murdoch of Architectural Designers Limited, representing city architects, said that the September vote had created “uncertainty”. For some members up to 90% of their work had been put on hold. Even if a “yes” vote happened, the changes wouldn’t come into force until April 2023.
Speaking via Zoom due to catching COVID, Benny Gillings bemoaned the unaffordability of housing. He favoured notification.
Harrison McEvoy believed “creating intensified corridors” was “better for mental health” because of shortened commuting times. “As a renter, you are forced to take up what’s in front of you,” he lamented.
Developer, Andrew McCarthy, believed the council, by voting “No”, “runs the risk the minister” will decide. He wanted PC14 to allow for building on the “[Port] hills”.
Long-time local politician and member of the Riccarton-Kilmarnock Resident’s Association, Helen Broughton, said:
“I think this is the biggest issue in Christchurch since the earthquakes” and that intensification would “transform Christchurch in a major way.”
Three centres in Riccarton would be termed “town centres”. Councillor Sara Templeton disputed Broughton’s contention that the Bush Inn area didn’t qualify. It was said to have 70 shops.
Garth Wilson of the Central Riccarton Residents’ Association (CRRA) opposed a “Yes” vote.
“This year we’re having more dire predictions,” he said, sardonically, in reference to rumours that if a “no” vote happened, the government would adopt the original plan (PC13), jettisoning the new plan that sought to minimise sunlight loss and include other qualifying matters.
“We don’t live in a communist regime.” He then compared the current era to a “goldrush” for developers.
He said Riccarton had already been intensified and that the infrastructure couldn’t cope.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The New Zealand Reporter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.