Hamilton city could turn into ‘a dump’
The political hot potato of providing for greater housing intensification in Hamilton has heated up even further – with a councillor warning the city could look like ‘‘a dump’’ if they get it wrong.
A city council district plan committee hui this week signed off on Plan Change 12 (PC12) despite a range of reservations from councillors keenly aware of the potential of ratepayers being unhappy about threestorey townhouses allowed over their fence in an election year.
The change opens the path for new government housing intensification laws. But it aims to manage change in a way that takes account of local sensitivities and issues, including the need to protect the Waikato River.
The draft policy will now go to full council for approval later this month before being publicly notified.
Information is then due to be sent to about 50,000 homes, with councillors distinctly nervous about getting this right given its potential to spook residents.
The final plan, after PC12 is considered by an independent hearings panel, is not expected to be operative until next year or even 2024.
Among the new laws – which had the support of both Labour and National MPs – is provision for up to three homes of three storeys on sections without needing resource consent.
City planning manager Mark Davey this week said the new legislation risked a cluttered Hamilton and ‘‘poor quality urban design outcomes’’.
At Thursday’s meeting, councillor Martin Gallagher agreed the ‘‘wellintended’’ legislation created risks and favoured targeted lobbying of political candidates over Hamilton’s concerns.
‘‘No bit of legislation is set in stone and Parliament always has the opportunity to tweak things. Our argument is we want more flexibility.’’
Davey told the committee PC12 ‘‘dances this tightrope’’ between complying with Government directives and mitigating the impacts of intensification.
Gallagher stressed ‘‘we don’t want Hamilton as a dump’’ and warned intensification could drive people away if poorly handled.
‘‘If there is a perception over time
‘‘If there is a perception over time that Hamilton is not an attractive place to live, work and play, then they can look to Tauranga, they are going to look at other places.’’
Martin Gallagher
that Hamilton is not an attractive place to live, work and play, then they can look to Tauranga, they are going to look at other places’’, including nearby satellite towns, Gallagher said.
Councillor Rob Pascoe was worried that potentially negative consequences of PC12 ‘‘will come back to haunt us’’ and was not sure the new laws would boost housing affordability.
Mayor Paula Southgate also expressed reservations: ‘‘The face of our city is going to look quite different in a very short period of time.’’
The timing of the issue was not great, given people had a lot on their plates.
‘‘This will just be another concern and worry,’’ Southgate said.
‘‘We need houses . . . [but] I am not convinced that this direction from Government is right for us.’’
That was a message the city needed to keep repeating, while planning how to deal with any negative impacts of PC12, Southgate said.
Speaking after the hui, committee chair Ryan Hamilton agreed the rule changes risked ‘‘unintended consequences’’.
But he was not sure there was much point in doing a lot of lobbying of Government at this point as PC12 would help manage many of the risks from the new law.
‘‘I think we have mitigated a lot of those feared unintended consequences.
‘‘The proof will be in the pudding of how things pan out over the next four or five years,’’ Hamilton said.
Meanwhile, one feature of PC12 is a requirement for new financial contributions (FCs) to the council for all developments to help offset their environmental and infrastructure impacts. At about $4879 a dwelling, it is predicted these FCs could generate $58 million over 10 years for council coffers. But Davey said most new residential infill housing would not need to pay resource consent fees in future, lessening the impact of FCs on new housing costs.