Special housing area legislation limits community consultation

As we continue to research into the legislation that rules special housing area approval, we are yet to find any data that proves it is:

• not designed for profit motivated development corporations to quickly access rural land without the limitations or restriction imposed by community consultation.
• adding any benefit to the complex community issues of affordability, outside of the processes that are already in place prior to its introduction.

In fact what we have come to realise - should Special Housing Areas continue as an enforced development strategy and as current practice for affordability by the council, it will only serve to add further to the complexities of affordability and create harm to communities. This is because it is of the same profit driven, linear thinking that has created it into existence. We are yet to be provided with evidence to the contrary.

Our concerns are that governing legislation, supported by the council, creates a huge advantage to property development corporations, global banks, national and global housing corporations, to easily access our rural land, quickly, while in reality are side stepping the social, economic, & environmental issues.

Social and Environmental issues should be addressed in decision making by the council on behalf of the people in our communities, to ensure best practice and outcome for all. This is the practice outside of Special Housing Area legislation required under the resource management act for all major land use change in New Zealand.

To Quote: Regulatory Impact Statement for Queenstown Country Club Special Housing Area:

"The underlying premise of the Act is that the need for additional or accelerated housing supply in Queenstown, and the public benefits that arise from that, outweigh the marginal cost of removing or reducing standard community consultation processes under the Resource Management Act. The main cost of establishing SHAs is that it reduces the ability for communities and existing residents to influence the scale and design of what gets built in their neighbourhoods. This trade-off was considered at a high level during the drafting and passage of the Act."

Removing the consultation process is unlawful. This is moving away from democratic process, with assumed authority from government to make this decision. This is assuming that there is no harm done. Removing democratic process does harm, the people believe that they have a say in all things in a democracy. What is this called when the consultation from the people is removed?

We only need to look at the outcome of Bridesdale Farms development in which there were NO houses allocated to the Community Housing Trust. A development fast tracked with Special Housing Area legislation, which has, three years on, contributed nothing to alleviate affordability issues.

Some viewed this development as unethical, with a high percentage of the sections pre-sold; prior to consent, this is seemingly common practice with property speculation, but in this case the pre-sales added to the proof of demand for the Special Housing Area approval.

The disputed and unethical outcome from the Bridesdale Farm development fast tracked for the purpose of alleviating affordability in the short term, has contributed to the community by further creating un-affordability. As a result, The housing accord was updated with new policy guidelines put in place.

Equally alarming and further supporting our claim that Special Housing Area development is unlawful and creates harm to communities, is the following statement found in the regulatory impact statement for Arrowtown Retirement Village, Shotover Country, Gorge Road and Arthurs Point SHAs:

"Councils are not obligated to offer consultation opportunities to local communities or the wider public prior to recommending a SHA. It is predicted that, should a SHA site satisfy the criteria outlined in paragraph 11, public support for the development will exist."

Do we, the people, the living men and women, approve of having decisions made for us without our consultation or consent? Is this lawful?

© Scoop Media