Bishop wants to accelerate urban sprawl

Written By: - Date published: 12:39 pm, July 4th, 2024 - 36 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, chris bishop, Environment, local government, national, same old national - Tags:

Chris Bishop is today giving a speech to the Real Estate Institute on its plans to accelerate housing growth.

The subject of the speech, how to increase housing supply, is obviously one that will appeal to the REINZ. All those extra houses to sell …

One of the proposals is that urban limits are softened up.

From the speech:

The government will also work towards embedding an effective “right to build” on city fringes, on the condition that the infrastructure costs of new development are covered. In other words, where “growth pays for growth”. Councils would not be able to turn down a development on the grounds that perceived demand isn’t there, or that the infrastructure costs are too high.

In addition, councils will no longer be able to impose rural urban boundaries in their planning documents. This doesn’t mean they can’t have land zoned for rural use, but it does mean they can’t set hard regulatory boundaries that constrain growth.

This is a recipie for disaster. Out west it would mean that the effect of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act would be severely affected. Urban boundaries are there for a good reason. Rural land is valuable for food purposes and retention of native forest. It adds to amenity, flora and fauna diversity. It can act as a sponge and slow down the release of water after storms. Develop the hills and the urban areas will flood more often and all of its intrinsic value will be lost.

And as shown by last year’s storm damage the area is very prone to slips. Increased development will only make this worse.

The Government’s approach is predictable. Talking about a “right to build” emphasises concepts of private proprietory rights and ignores the environment.

The word “environment” is only mentioned twice and that is in relation to the Minister and the Ministry. “Environment” as a concept and as something to be protected is obviously not a concern.

Compact urban form and the “compact city” principle are well established ideas. Allowing urban sprawl means that people drive more and public transport costs more. Paris is a city doing its best to be sustainable. It is clear the this Government prefers Phoenix, Arizona as a model. This city has been described as the world’s least sustainable city.

Clearly implementing the proposal will be complex. It took the last Government 6 years to get some changes to the Resource Management Act made. This is not something that you can do quickly.

But the general preference is clear. More sprawl, greater concentration on private rights and less emphasis on environmental protection.

36 comments on “Bishop wants to accelerate urban sprawl ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    4 July 2024 at 1:31 pm

    So just to check though, Labour did massively accelerate Auckland sprawl. Up and out. And we needed it.

    Back in my day we fought tooth and nail with the ARC about the MUL.

  2. homo rationalis 2
    4 July 2024 at 2:25 pm

    These are misconceived comments. While the government's announcement does nothing to limit urban sprawl, its real and novel appeal is much more its push to intensify.

    • building up into smaller spaces makes accomodation more available
    • building up is capital efficient for builders, owners, users, funders and regulators
    • building up increases affordability
    • building up means less expensive local infrastructure, less pressure on rates and levies
    • building up means less expensive and more public transport at scale
    • intensification provides much in the way of positive societal network effects
    • all in all, more affordable accomodation for all stakeholders means a substantial drop in one vector of poverty and inequality

    Good to see government actually going for the jugular in what has been an intractable problem .

  3. Georgecom 3
    4 July 2024 at 2:39 pm

    Bishop has also told Kaianga Ora to provide a 'turn around plan to eliminate losses'. So what, stop buding houses? As thats where much of the debt has come from. Clear the debt? Sell some houses ay Chris. Why cant this government just be honest about things. 'We are concerned about the costs of building state houses so we wont build any more'.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1
      4 July 2024 at 5:04 pm

      Theres two parts of Kaianga Ora

      1) new home building side, which is financed by borrowing and they pay the interest on that – plus its capital spending for new assets so isnt losing money

      2) Rental side of the KO. All homes have market rents calculated . If the tenants are social housing qualified ( 25% of income is max rent) and the rent paid is less than the market rent then that a bill that is paid by government in the annual budget. This seems to be where they have imagined there are 'losses'. But its government policy that the shortfall is funded by the taxpayer.

      • georgecom 3.1.1
        5 July 2024 at 1:28 pm

        yup indeed. I neglected to mention the rents which are a cost. new builds and low rents = costing money, debt, however you want to describe it. must have been a shock to Bishop, a social housing organisation not actually making a profit.

        [Please stick to your approved email address, thanks – Incognito]

  4. feijoa 4
    4 July 2024 at 4:00 pm

    Oh great.

    Developers in charge of our housing. Can't have those pesky university trained town planners tell us what to do eh?

    So where do we grow our food if Pukekohe is gone?

    Since when are developers experts on environmental protection, climate hazards, transport and utility planning, aspects of design that are good for our mental health… etc

    We need to build communities, with ALL that that entails, not just houses. Parks, playgrounds, community and civil defense centres, sports fields, libraries, transport, connections to nature, schools, health care, allotments even, etc

  5. adam 5
    4 July 2024 at 4:17 pm

    Leaky homes, back.

    Sprawl so you can pay your taxes to the motor industry, check.

    More money for the Renter Class, delivered with distraction and pathos. All that time at the tobacco lobby has paid off for Bish, he can deliver like all good propagandists do.

    (The Renter Class, for those new to the site, are the Property speculators, Bankers and Financiers)

  6. Steve Bradley 6
    4 July 2024 at 4:46 pm

    Just a bit of intel. from maybe 10 years ago. An old school-mate of mine said he'd been back to his home country of the Netherlands. He told me about mass-produced housing there. Terraced housing on steroids. On the first plot of the planned terrace – cast a slab on ground. Two days later prop it up and cast a new slab in the same mold on the same ground; two days later prop it up and brace back to the first slab. Then move to the adjacent next vacant plot and dig a mold. Rinse and repeat until the end of the planned terrace is reached.

    Meanwhile, every day or so a large Hiab truck arrives from the modular home unit building factory and slides one floor of the house between the erect slabs. Next a team of tradespersons – carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters and decorators – arrives and connects the house floor to the slabs, to any other floors , and common terrace utilities, [water, sewerage, electricity, fiber] installs joinery, and provides interior decor, etc.

    And so it goes. Brown field or green. Minimum space required. Minimum energy consumed – in the building and and long term. Maximum energy efficiency in that only two of four walls are exposed to the elements. Public transport friendly compact linear dwelling pattern. Minimum price. What's not to like?

    Individual outdoor space for planting and kids is just a matter of regulated specification. As is communal gardens, playgrounds, et.al. As is quality specifications.

    Think about it. It needn't be compulsory!

  7. Mike the Lefty 7
    4 July 2024 at 7:01 pm

    I note that Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown tonight cautioned National that their rural supporters might not necessarily be wild with delight by this.

    In any case, if anyone thinks this is even remotely designed to fix the housing crisis, then they are missing the point.

    The point is rewarding big development, a key supporter (and funder) of National by allowing more yuppie lifestyle development on the desirable fringes of urban areas where the big profits can be made. It isn't, and never was, designed for any middle class or social housing.

    Previous governments have facilitated urban sprawl by basically ignoring the problem. National goes a step further by actively and knowingly accelerating it.

    A forwards looking government would have a plan, but National aren't forward looking, their policies always hark back to the glory days before we knew about CFCs destroying the ozone layer, climate change and we liberally sprayed DDT everywhere.

  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    5 July 2024 at 7:57 am

    Private developers and building component suppliers and “Tradies” prefer the high margin jobs–which is why they effectively went on strike over “KiwiBuild”–albeit a flawed Labour initiative.

    Relaxed regulation like Bishflap’s proposal is what developers like–do what you want, get a good earn, and let others deal with the consequences.

    • tc 8.1
      5 July 2024 at 8:49 am

      "….let others deal with the consequences."
      Pretty much sums the CoC up as they blaze away rewarding their funders.

  9. tsmithfield 9
    5 July 2024 at 9:08 am

    I have heard several Labour people saying that they would likely support National's plan. The last being Sepuloni on the Hosking's Wednesday morning chat between 8 and 8.30.

    • mickysavage 9.1
      5 July 2024 at 9:09 am

      I am sure she only supports elements of it. The intensification aspect is not all bad, much of it is what Labour did last term.

      • tsmithfield 9.1.1
        5 July 2024 at 10:00 am

        I think the practicalities will make Urban Sprawl a slow process anyway. The infrastructure for the subidivisions is one thing. But, they eventually have to connect into the main sewage lines, which I think is where the problem will be. Sooner or later the whole sewage system, including pipes and processing facilities, will need to be expanded. Otherwise cities will be in the shit literally.

    • James Simpson 9.2
      5 July 2024 at 11:57 am

      Kieran McAnulty is mostly in support of this as well, but has pointed out the glaring omission which is infrastructure costs.

      The main problem with sprawl is the cost of connecting that new suburb to the city infrastructure that it grows from. Gobbling up 1000 acres of productive land for housing a development is negligible in the context of our entire primary industry. But the infrastructure cost is the biggest issue which Bishop seems to be ignoring.

  10. Mountain Tui 10
    5 July 2024 at 10:29 am

    Read my post on how this is all part of the plan.

    Affordability and housing crisis are just pre-texts for the National Govt's narrative

    Knives out for Kainga Ora

    TLDR: Bishop had always intended to shortchange Kāinga Ora and malign the Board and Executive. The $500,000 independent review of Kāinga Ora was anything but, and poses serious ethical issues in both conduct and outcomes. Kāinga Ora had a debt to assset ratio of 0.25 when the Government said it was not financially viable. Commentators have noted that financial profile is appropriate and could even be seen as a “huge success” for a social housing provider. KO built over 80% of all net new public homes. It didn’t deserve this storyline.

    • georgecom 10.1
      5 July 2024 at 1:32 pm

      and how many pages was the $500k report? under 20 is my recollection, maybe 10?

      something like $20k per page?

      a nice little rort earner for English and co

      [Please stick to your approved email address, thanks – Incognito]

    • PsyclingLeft.Always 10.2
      5 July 2024 at 2:43 pm

      Mountain Tui, I read your

      https://mountaintuihere.substack.com/p/achievements-of-the-coalition-government

      Well summed, and awesome to have them laid bare as it were ! And the accompanying photo of the creeps sure does paint a lot of words…

      IMO I'd say they are Dark achievements… how far into the spectrum does Dark cover ?

      Thankyou for your efforts. Keep up the good work !

  11. Mountain Tui 11
    5 July 2024 at 10:34 am

    I wrote about this – it's all part of the plan.

  12. georgecom 12
    5 July 2024 at 3:55 pm

    former board member of KO calls things as they are, a pretty blunt rebuttal of Bishop