The new District Plan is an opportunity to transform Christchurch into a world-class city with high quality affordable homes. Advocacy group, Greater Ōtautahi, is calling on Christchurch City councillors to pass sensible amendments to make the Plan even better.

The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) released its recommendations for the District Plan earlier this week. They have proposed some changes to the planning rules which would allow more housing choice. The city councillors can choose to accept these recommendations, or propose their own alternative changes.

“First impressions? The panel’s recommendations are a mixed bag. We welcome changes that will make it easier to build the new homes that Christchurch desperately needs. But some of their recommendations - particularly restricting building height limits just outside the city centre – will needlessly constrain new housing supply and hold back the vibrancy of our city,” said Greater Ōtautahi spokesperson, M Grace-Stent.

“Christchurch is New Zealand’s second biggest city and has huge potential to be a thriving and lively place that people want to move to. But the housing shortage is holding us back. After the earthquakes, we expanded out because we needed more homes quickly. Now we need to grow up, too. We know that changing the planning rules to allow more homes in existing areas would make our city more liveable, make housing more affordable, and mean better housing choice for our current and future residents - in particular, young families, students, and elderly residents.”

“Christchurch City Council still has time to make changes to the District Plan before they vote it into law in September. Councillors should accept the panel’s recommendations that make it easier to build townhouses and apartments in well–connected parts of the city. But some of their recommendations will have the opposite effect, and these need to be amended.”

Councillors should accept:

1. The panel’s approach to ‘qualifying matters’: it is harder to build townhouses and apartments in parts of the city where ‘qualifying matters’ are applied. The panel is right to recommend removing or paring back the ‘Sunlight Access’, ‘Low Public Transport’, ‘Riccarton Bush Interface’, ‘Character Areas’, and ‘Airport Noise Contour’ qualifying matters. These were applied without a strong legal or evidential basis, and were mostly opposed by submitters.
2. The recommendation to increase building height limits in the Riccarton, Hornby, Papanui town centres from 22m to 32m a mix of new shops, homes, and community facilities would make our suburban centres hum with life.

Councillors should amend:

1. Building height limits in the central city: the panel has recommended enabling more apartment buildings in the city centre, which is great. But they only want to make it easy for buildings up to 28m tall – taller buildings would face much more onerous rules. We want this limit to be higher, closer to 40m which would be consistent with Plans in Auckland and Wellington City. More people living in this city centre would make it lively, attractive and fun, and would provide more customers for our central city businesses.
2. Walkable catchment for the central city: the central government has said councils must enable buildings of at least six-storeys within ‘walkable catchments’ of city centres. But Christchurch City Council can decide for itself what a ‘walkable catchment’ is. Allowing denser development near the city centre is a great idea, because it means we can build more homes in the places that are easy to access, where people want to live. The Panel has recommended setting the four Avenues as the boundary of these ‘walkable catchments’. We think this boundary would exclude lots of good areas with high redevelopment potential – councillors need to pass an amendment to make it wider, to include parts of Merivale, Edgeware, Linwood and a new mixed-use residential neighbourhood in Sydenham.

Councillors have an opportunity to vote for changes on the 3rd of September, which would then need to be approved by the Minister of Housing. We’re calling on our councillors to be bold and future-focused. The evidence is clear that enabling more homes in places where people want to live is universally beneficial. It enables those on the fringes of society to live with dignity, allows the elderly to age in place, lessens the rates burden on the individual while they benefit from better services and infrastructure, boosts our national and local economy, and so much more. Amid a housing crisis, we must build more homes!

© Scoop Media