Minister Bishop’s Misguided Legislation

Written By: - Date published: 8:20 am, July 18th, 2024 - 32 comments
Categories: chris bishop, housing, national, same old national - Tags:

Cross posted with permission.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Lewers where he says that the recent proposal by government minister Bishop to “flood the market” with housing development is “unaffordable, unworkable and unfair” I would add “unsustainable” and even “unhinged”.

Mr. Bishop is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. From my involvement in the district plan process on behalf of the Upper Clutha Environmental Society I am aware that the Queenstown Lakes District has sufficient land zoned for urban residential development to meet requirements until 2046. My understanding is that this is also the case for the other districts in NZ because National Standards have for some time required such provision be made. Mr. Bishop says the lack of provision of land for residential development is a “bottleneck”. He is wrong.

Bishop’s legislation proposes to get rid of the current urban-rural zonings in the district plan. Mayor Lewers says, in his Whakatipu-centered manner, that this will mean Arrowtown’s urban-rural boundary will be dumped. But it will also mean that that the urban-rural boundaries of Wanaka and Hawea will be dumped. This will mean that unfettered urban development will happen all the way from Wanaka to Hawea. Nobody will be able to stop this because it will be “as of right” development permitted by Bishop’s proposed legislation. There will be no public input. This is madness.     

The loony “flood the market” legislation is proposed in addition to other badly designed government legislation recently proposed that will permit existing houses, in urban and rural areas, to add a 60m2 residence as of right (so-called granny flats). This will enable these buildings to be plastered all over the wonderful Queenstown Lakes District landscapes, immediately beside lakes and rivers, on top of ridges and so on, with no controls over adverse effects whatsoever. Who needs planning rules? 

The Queenstown Lakes District proposed district plan has been developed over ten years, taking into account thousands of submissions from the public. It has cost many millions of dollars. The rules in the district plan protect landscape values while permitting more than enough residential development. Bishop’s proposed legislation trashes these rules-it is madness. It is legislation written by someone sat in a Wellington ivory tower that has little knowledge or respect for what is going on in small-town NZ.

Julian Haworth

President

Upper Clutha Environmental Society

(formed 29 years ago and still going strong)

32 comments on “Minister Bishop’s Misguided Legislation ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. PsyclingLeft.Always 1
    18 July 2024 at 9:03 am

    Peter Thiel, Chris Meehan , et al ; will be smiling, if not laughing !

    • SPC 1.1
      18 July 2024 at 11:42 am

      No that type would agree with controls to preserve the prime land value status.

      • PsyclingLeft.Always 1.1.1
        18 July 2024 at 1:58 pm

        SPC, you maybe havent seen/know about Thiel and Meehans bitter battles with Upper Clutha ES and other locals?

        IMO they would laugh as a mean spirited payback….

        And besides, the $ Mega millions they have at their disposal means the prime land will be theirs anyway.

  2. SPC 2
    18 July 2024 at 11:36 am

    The group is an advocate for maintaining the areas landscapes (prime real estate status for landowners).

    This is why it makes no mention of the lack of affordable housing for workers in Queenstown

    The loony “flood the market” legislation is proposed in addition to other badly designed government legislation recently proposed that will permit existing houses, in urban and rural areas, to add a 60m2 residence as of right (so-called granny flats). This will enable these buildings to be plastered all over the wonderful Queenstown Lakes District landscapes, immediately beside lakes and rivers, on top of ridges and so on, with no controls over adverse effects whatsoever. Who needs planning rules?

    Surely only able to build where they can a house on their land now, or large sheds (as large as granny flats). And most already have houses large enough for guests (nor need the money). Though it might make new sections affordable to those who might add a granny flat (and rent out).

    It's a good thing if granny flats and mobile homes can be provided for in both urban and rural areas.

    That said land use is a concern, as we do need to preserve good growing land. And making land use available for housing, should never be making all land being made available.

    • Ad 2.1
      18 July 2024 at 11:44 am

      Our entire tourism economy and the $$$billions of real estate investment that flows from it is contingent on just one thing:

      protecting the view

      • SPC 2.1.1
        18 July 2024 at 11:48 am

        I doubt that building a granny flat on land that a large shed or house can be built on now, would impact the view.

    • Bearded Git 2.2
      18 July 2024 at 11:46 am

      SPC-There are actually strong rules/controls over farm sheds in the Outstanding Natural Landscape of the Queenstown Lakes District (QLD). Often they are publicly notified, though inevitably some sneak through in intrusive locations, sometimes then to transform miraculously into residences.

      60m2 as-of-right buildings associated with existing residences are fine in the urban zones if they can be fitted onto a section. Allowing them to be scattered randomly all over the rural landscapes, which the QLD economy relies upon for its tourist income and for the wellbeing of locals, is idiotic and unnecessary.

      • SPC 2.2.1
        18 July 2024 at 11:52 am

        Why would the existing controls over where a building can be placed change because of a right to have a granny flat on the land?

        • weka 2.2.1.1
          18 July 2024 at 12:16 pm

          the post is saying district plan rules will be overridden. We need to see the legislation or an analysis of it to see if that is true.

          • weka 2.2.1.1.1
            18 July 2024 at 12:22 pm

            from the post,

            Bishop’s legislation proposes to get rid of the current urban-rural zonings in the district plan.

            • SPC 2.2.1.1.1.1
              18 July 2024 at 12:38 pm

              That of itself does not replace rules about location of buildings (as per ridge and lakeside).

              It does enable urban sprawl (and if around lakes would have an impact).

              • weka …
                18 July 2024 at 12:43 pm

                what do you mean 'if'?

                • SPC …
                  18 July 2024 at 12:45 pm

                  If existing rules protect lake views, they might constrain urban sprawl close to the lakeside.

                  At the moment that might be being done by the rural designation.

                  • weka …
                    18 July 2024 at 12:53 pm

                    I think it’s also that existing rules differentiate between rural and urban (and within those). If those are removed for the granny flat thing, the protections are gone. But I still don’t know what legislation is being discussed, so we are all guessing here.

                  • Bearded Git …
                    18 July 2024 at 2:03 pm

                    You don't understand the process SPC.

                    Bishop's legislation will make the 60m2 buildings a permitted activity. This means the landowner does not have to reference district plan rules in terms of location etc. There will be no requirement for the Council to assess the development or have input of any kind. It is permitted on their property-they can do what they like so long as it is 60m2. Who knows if their will be height or colour controls?

                    All that would be required is building consent. At least this is how the legislation seems to read at the moment. Talk about badly thought out.

                    • SPC …
                      18 July 2024 at 2:27 pm

                      So you say …

                      Building a house on land one owns is also a permitted activity and requires building consent. But it also has constraints such as height, not to close to section boundaries and the like (here there are rules about impact on the view).

                      Why would these constraints not apply to a small build?

  3. weka 3
    18 July 2024 at 12:14 pm

    Which legislation is being referred to in the post?

  4. David 4
    18 July 2024 at 12:24 pm

    Jesus wept, many years ago I’d catch the train and bus with my mates and go to the Wellington winter show during school holidays. I never recall seeing any homeless people living on the streets, unlike now. We need to do something, middle class white people worried about their nice view being ruined by housing poor people is not something we need to worry about. You have money, so some of you may have to move elsewhere. It may be an inconvenience, but at least you’re not homeless.

    • weka 4.1
      18 July 2024 at 12:43 pm

      there's nowhere else to move. Views are one issue. But mass migration is another. I suspect many don't understand just how much the housing crisis from the cities has impacted on small towns, both in terms of housing costs but also how towns/areas change in character. People live in small places because they don't want to live in a city. When there is mass development and housing, the culture of place changes.

      I think the granny flat thing has a lot of good potential. But if the OP is correct that the legislation will override local body district planning, then what will happen is the big city housing crises will be made even worse in smaller areas.

      Anyone who has been paying attention to the Wakatipu basin in the past 40 years can see the example. It's classic growth economy idiocy, because it's basically a limited landscape in ways that most places aren't. It's a single area bounded by mountains with three tricky roads to get in and out of. They're already well past peak population and now the push is on to spread the madness by building an international airport at Tarras.

      All of these things are related. None of them are in anyway cognisant of climate or ecological crises.

      The reason QLD has a housing crisis is because the council refused to do anything about it early on, and still largely sits on its hands and favours growth/development over families, workers and quality of life.

      • Bearded Git 4.1.1
        18 July 2024 at 2:16 pm

        True and well said Weka.

      • Graeme 4.1.2
        18 July 2024 at 5:49 pm

        I think the granny flat thing has a lot of good potential

        A complete red herring in Whakatipu

        Granny flats have been allowed in QLDC for 10 years. Prior to that Residential Flats that were attached to the main dwelling were allowed, and in rural areas residential use could occupy half the floor area of an accessory building. A very large proportion of dwellings here going back to 50's have residential flats, or sleep outs, which officially don't have a kitchen (ahem).

        The issue here is people deciding they are going to build a suburb on their farm. that will completely upend Council's infrastructure planning which is what Lewers is getting off his bike about.

  5. Graeme 5
    18 July 2024 at 1:10 pm

    I saw Bishop's announcement and wondered which hopeful landbanker / developer had a 4:00 PM deadline coming up. A windfall zoning change would be just the ticket to stave off some embarrassing headlines. There's a few contenders, but one got a mention up thread.

    The announcement won't get any houses built in the term of this government, fights with the developers competitors, creditors and neighbours will take care of that. Then the developer has to get the relevant Council to provide services at a price that makes the development economic. There's an area near me, 500+ houses that will be eligible but the infrastructure costs will be getting out there, but the current owners just booked a good capital gain.

  6. Macro 6
    18 July 2024 at 1:52 pm

    I must admit that I am pleased to hear the proposed change. There are many ageing folk in our cities who would very much like move into a granny flat on their son/daughters place as they age. They are not looking to move into their children's home, but need to be close by as they age. Certainly in Auckland it can cost an arm and a leg for such planning permission. Resource consents, building consents, etc and the resulting price makes such a move out of the question. There are many good little prebuilt homes around that suit, but the current legislative regime doubles the price, or make any such building impossible.

    Not everyone wants to move into a retirement village and away from family. I know many folk in retirement villages who never see their family because they are hours away. Whereas they could have been close to them and mokapuna in a granny flat.

  7. tc 7
    18 July 2024 at 3:07 pm

    The perfect fit really for this mob getting the ex tobacco lobbyist who staffed for joyce across housing, infrastructure, RMA reform and finance.

    Skilled debater who can be relied on to spin like a top on demand.

  8. roblogic 8
    18 July 2024 at 3:27 pm

    This is a pretend solution to the housing crisis that Labour was fixing via Kainga Ora and HUD projects and generally supporting the building industry to produce higher intensity dwellings.

    Bishop's proposal is a mandate for sprawl and McMansions, the granny flat thing is just a distraction.

    The facts on the ground is that builders are quitting NZ because this government can’t be trusted. NACT1 has canned all of KO’s work FFS. Look at what they do, not what they say.