Following our satire of his pack ‘n’ stack housing obsessions, Gwynn Compton has chosen to triple down on his attacks on Waikanae people — and now us, about which more will be said soon. However, one point in his claims, namely these are going to be “two-storey townhouses,” needs answering now:

by Richard Mansell

I am not a planner, but I think the heights of buildings differed around different centres. KCDC had previously defined some centres, mostly logical around commercial areas, such as Waikanae village, Paraparaumu, Paraparaumu Beach but had also included some less obvious ones such as Kena Kena shops, and Waikanae Beach (near the tennis court). These centres then had medium density and height limits imposed by Central government. I think Waikanae village was 6 levels, Paraparaumu was 15 levels, and other places around 3 to 4.

Those centres still apply and so do the level limits.

The Eruini St units are able to go to 3 stories under PC2 which was another government imposed planning change. I think they are only going to be 2 levels but in my mind the issue is the ground level is being raised to above the ponding levels imposed in the district plan. This lifts the units well above the surrounding areas ground levels and creates the shading and looking into the neighbouring houses.

Unfortunately, this development complies with most of the building requirements in the district plan and will be tested against those. The ones it may not comply they will propose measures to mitigate any effects so they are less than minor. This mitigation will be supported by expert evidence. The council officers will test those mitigations, will probably have to get the evidence peer reviewed by their own experts and then make a decision. If they go against expert evidence it will likely have to go to an appeal. Which, I suggest, they would likely lose and will cost them a lot. The case law on minor effects and mitigation is pretty extensive and the experts know it and work to it.

As much as I hate it, I think the council will approve the consent with conditions.

I do not know if the units will sell in that location. I would not buy one but there may be some who would. It takes all sorts…

by Michael Papesch

Gwynn Compton has been writing a lot on the ‘NIMBY’ thing, denigrating ‘NIMBYs’.   I cannot help wonder why people who write about this are so dismissive about people’s concerns about losing their view or sun from their properties.  Maybe they’re on properties that cannot be built out.

This is a photo of a house in Island Bay, Wellington, close to where we used to live.  The shops to the right have always been there.  To the left of the house (north of it) used to be single storied dwellings; sunlight comes from the north of the house for about 10-11 months of the year. Those single storied dwellings to the north were knocked down and this three-storied monstrosity was built right up to the boundary of the house in the middle.

The photo was taken on a sunny winters’ day in the early afternoon.  The old house in completely shade as it is for 10-11 months a year, whereas everyone else had sun on their properties,

The house now does not get any sun at all, for probably 10-11 months of the year.  So why is that OK?  If I was that homeowner, I’d be a NIMBY too, as good sun on a house is critical for warmth and well-being.   

Gwynn likes to portray NIMBYs as people who want to exclude “undesirable” (however defined) residents from their neighbourhoods – almost turning it into a class thing.  But I reckon 90-95% of so-called NIMBY’s are like the owner of this place in Island Bay – what will this development next door to me do to my sun?

I am all for medium to high density housing, done well. That includes respecting the right of existing owners to retain (most of) their sun and views. It seems to me that the Government’s drive to increase the housing stock has taken the view that the rights and interests of existing home owners should be disregarded entirely.  This property in Island Bay might be an extreme example of how this plays out in practice – and may not be the issue confronting the new development in Waikanae – but it was certainly a big factor for us when looking for properties to buy in Kapiti. 

We were interested in a property near the then vacant property on Kapiti Road opposite Kapiti airport – the one that has now been cleared and is about to be developed.  But one reason why we didn’t buy it was the high likelihood that it would be bought by a developer and a three storied townhouse would be built on our boundary, blocking all the light to the house we were interested in.

The broader question at present is what changes will the present government make to the Jacinda regime’s allowances and requirements? This has been partially answered in an article in the NZ Herald:

Hundreds of thousands of Auckland properties currently zoned for three-storey developments are likely to revert to their single-house status.

This is one key plank of a major change to planning regulations being presented by officials to the Auckland Council [today].

Other proposed changes the Herald has been briefed on include:

• 10-storey and 15-storey developments will be allowed within a 10-minute walk of some train stations, rapid bus stations and the edge of town centres. There will be 44 such “walkable catchments”.
• Height limits will be raised to six storeys along more major transport corridors.
• 12,000 properties will be “downzoned”, making new developments on them harder or not permitted at all, because they are at risk of “natural hazards” such as coastal erosion and flooding.
• “Special character” designations will disappear in some parts of the city.

Bishop has already told councils in large cities they may “opt out” of the medium density residential standards (MDRS) introduced by the last Government. The MDRS are regulations that allow three-storey developments on almost every residential property.

Thus it may be the case soon that property businessmen won’t be able to do what they think they can.