Goodbye to ‘village’
Mayor’s warning over housing plans
‘‘I don’t know where these guys are coming from in Wellington. ’’
Jim Mylchreest
Waipā District mayor
Worries about new ‘‘three and three’’ Government housing intensification rules changing the streetscape of some of Waikato’s most picturesque towns are deepening, with Waipā the latest to join Hamilton in expressing deep concern.
As high-growth areas, Cambridge, Te Awamutu and Kihikihi in Waipā join major centres in being caught up in the new laws. They provide for up to three homes of three storeys on a section without the need for a resource consent.
Waipā district said councillors had reluctantly agreed Tuesday to notify a district plan change for public consultation to give effect to the new rules, supported by Labour and National. In an interview, mayor Jim Mylchreest said that people in the district, particularly Cambridge, were worried a ‘‘village feel’’ to their areas could be destroyed by a proliferation of such developments in existing housing areas.
‘‘It’s just not what we believe the community wants,’’ Mylchreest said.
Mylchreest was also concerned about the costs of ‘‘retrofitting’’ existing ‘‘brownfield’’ areas to cope with the intensification that the new policies will bring, including their impact on water supply, sewage networks and the need for parking facilities.
‘‘There’s nowhere within these existing areas that could cope with the potential intensification.’’
To retrofit existing communities ‘‘is really challenging’’, he said.
Mylchreest believed the sorts of costs involved could be ‘‘huge’’.
He agreed with the idea of more medium-density, affordable housing but thought greenfield sites would be more appropriate.
The suggested ‘‘three and three’’ approach and bumping up rates to pay for the added infrastructure ‘‘is just not logical’’.
‘‘I don’t know where these guys are coming from in Wellington.’’
While the Government could say that intensification may not happen quickly, councils would still need to juggle how far to go with infrastructure upgrades to cope with what could happen.
‘‘It could happen but where it’s going to happen is the issue,’’ said Mylchreest.
Because ‘‘it’s a blanket rule’’ it could happen anywhere, he added, and the Government should talk more to local govern
ment about ways to tackle the housing crisis.
Group planning manager district growth and regulatory services Wayne Allan echoed Mylchreest’s concerns in a statement, saying that Cambridge is not Auckland and Te Awamutu is not Hamilton.
‘‘Our residents are not used to multi-storey dwellings going up next door, that’s not why they live here. This legislation is a complete misfit for our district.’’
Allan said he had never seen such a heavy-handed approach to planning issues.
‘‘Essentially we have been told that any submissions which seek to amend or delete the new density standards will be considered out of scope. That is highly unusual and means our towns are in for fundamental changes to how they look and feel,
‘‘This change lumps Cambridge, Te Awamutu and Kihikihi in with huge cities like Auckland; it’s simply nonsensical.’’
He also said fundamental issues had been overlooked in the rush to change planning rules.
‘‘Initial reports indicate Waipā’s infrastructure – our roads and pipes and so on – may not have the capacity to cope with a huge and fast increase in housing. If that’s the case, resource consents will still be required and developers may have to front up with money for infrastructure improvements before anything can progress.’’
In Hamilton, the district plan committee last week signed off on Plan Change 12 to give effect to the new Government rules, despite a range of reservations from councillors keenly aware of the potential for ratepayers being unhappy about the impact of the new rules on them.
One councillor went so far as to express fears the changes could help turn parts of Hamilton into a ‘‘dump’’, while the city planning manager was worried the new legislation risked a cluttered city and ‘‘poor quality urban design outcomes’’.