‘Aspirational’ 70% infill housing goal worries city councillors
City councillors are uneasy about the idea of 70% of Hamilton’s new housing being infill.
Such intensification, stemming from new central Government measures and proposed council policies, has been a hot topic in recent years.
The ‘‘aspirational’’ 70% figure is part of the Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS), which the council is expected to finalise in April. The city council previously aimed for half of all new homes to be built in existing areas.
HUGS is a draft high-level strategic guide, for managing Hamilton’s rapid growth, that the council would give effect to with the likes of planning and infrastructure investment.
Higher density housing would ‘‘focus around the central city and within walking distance of it’’.
Councillor Geoff Taylor has warned previously of potential for major problems if intensification is done wrong, including crowded suburbs with inadequate parking.
He was the sole councillor who last term voted against public consultation on HUGS.
Councillors attended a briefing Wednesday to discuss public feedback on the draft HUGS, including incorporation of a ‘‘grow well’’ theme.
Taylor noted parts of Hillcrest were ‘‘just a slum already with cars all over the place’’ through intensification. There were also similar problems in Grandview Heights and Nawton, he said.
‘‘We’re at odds with this grow well theme there.’’
A 70% growth from infill target could create more problems, he said.
Councillor Sarah Thomson, too, was worried about poorly managed infill development and other councillors also raised issues.
Strategic growth and district plan committee chairperson Ryan Hamilton questioned whether such an arbitrary split between infill and greenfield development on new city sites was even necessary.
‘‘I told you I was grumpy, I warned you,’’ he told staff.
He suggested 70% had effectively got into the strategy at the urging of a now retired councillor and was worried about what costs it would impose on the city.
Hamilton was concerned at greenfield development being ‘‘chopped off’’.
Deputy mayor Angela O’Leary was currently ‘‘uncomfortable’’ with 70%. ‘‘This proposal takes 20% off greenfield.’’
A stocktake of infrastructure was needed to see if the city could accommodate 70%.
Councillor Ewan Wilson wanted greater focus on providing affordable housing during intensification.
‘‘For me to sign off on HUGS at a governance level, when I’m defining ‘grow well’, an element of affordable housing needs to be very clearly articulated.’’
City planning manager Mark Davey said of the 70% figure: ‘‘It’s an aspirational target, which was designed to suggest the city favoured compact growth.’’
And, he added: ‘‘I’m not comfortable with a blanket 70% being infill in Hamilton.’’
He said achieving that figure could be through developments in targeted areas rather than city-wide.
‘‘You can’t intensify everywhere.’’ Councillor Maxine van Oosten felt targeting the CBD more for intensification rather than everywhere ‘‘could be much more realistic’’.
Davey said the council could look to incentivise more high-rise in the CBD.
HUGS also promotes growth along transport routes and Davey noted ‘‘population density’’ was needed in such areas to help passenger transport succeed.
Thomson said it needed to be clear that 70% ‘‘is a longer-term thing’’.
Ironically, the discussion comes after 68% of new Hamilton housing consents in December last year came from infill already. But that was against a range of 47% to 62% for the rest of calendar 2022. It’s believed higher interest rates may have helped stall some greenfield developments, dropping consenting in these areas towards the end of the year.
The strategic growth and district plan committee will next discuss HUGS on February 23, with the full council due to finalise it in April.