Watering down ‘townhouse bill’ costs 1690 homes
Official analysis shows the proposed changes to the bipartisan housing bill will only cost 1690 potential new dwellings in Auckland.
Labour and National are both backing a move to weaken the bill they negotiated together to zone for far more medium-density housing in New Zealand’s major cities.
The two parties struck a deal to pass a massive change to zoning laws in October, allowing threestorey three-dwelling buildings on residential land in major cities without resource consent.
This would remove much of the control those councils have over stopping things like townhouses being built, and is estimated to allow up to 105,000 more dwellings to be built over the next eight years.
The proposed change to the bill will lower the height that a building can be at one metre from its boundary from six metres to four, with a 60 degree recessionary plane.
Analysis from PWC and released by Environment Minister David Parker suggests that in Auckland this will reduce the number of homes being built as a result of the bill by 1690 over eight years – or 4 percent of the total homes it is estimated the bill will allow.
The analysis shows that any further lowering would have a much larger effect – with a 3 metre limit reducing the projected homes by 12,124. National and Labour have been under pressure to change the bill by councils in select committee, who are set to lose much of the power they currently have to stop new homes being built.
The parties are keen to get the bill passed before Parliament rises on December 15 and have put it through a truncated select committee process. It was expected to pass its second reading last night, less than two months after being introduced. Bills generally go through around six months of select committee before second reading. National has faced particular pressure from ACT’s David Seymour, who argues the bill will introduce ‘‘chaos’’ and won’t solve the problem of housing because it does not pay for infrastructure.
‘‘It doesn’t matter how many houses could be theoretically built if there’s no connections. Without more infrastructure, there won’t be more houses in total, they’ll just be in different places,’’ Seymour said. The Infrastructure Commission disagreed, saying the bill could actually lower infrastructure costs as medium density dwellings would use infrastructure more efficiently.