This week we have Tony Simons from the Combined Residents Association to talk about PC14. We decided to address this issue as I received several stroppy emails reacting to my comments about NIMBY-ism in the last Tuesday Club notes. The writers assumed I was referring to PC14. I didn’t have a clue about this process, or what PC14 meant. So, the best way to learn about it is to invite a person who has been deeply involved in the exercise.
My initial comments in the Tuesday Club notes came from bitter experience whilst serving as an elected rep dealing with people not wanting intensive housing near their homes.
Here’s what Tony wrote to me as a brief on PC14:
As background, this all started some years back when Labour and National agreed to collaborate on a plan they thought might solve the so-called housing crisis (supply and affordability) that neither party, in government, had ever been able to solve. The problem had apparently reached critical proportions, particularly in Auckland, largely due to low interest rates, resulting in escalating property prices and where there was a shortage of housing .
Of the big cities, Christchurch was least affected by the ‘crisis’, nonetheless the politicians, in their wisdom, decided to enact legislation that would ‘enable’ housing intensification across the entire motu to a level that was far in excess of what was required to meet any conceivable level of future demand, effectively giving developers carte blanche to build what they liked where they liked.
The cities identified as most in need of this laissez-faire approach to densification were Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua and Wellington and, almost an afterthought, Christchurch. These so-called Tier One cities were directed to allow three 3-storey dwellings on any site pretty much anywhere, with no resource consent required, and high rise around all main suburban shopping areas (up to 6-storeys), again with no RC needed.
Residents across Christchurch didn’t need much encouragement to rebel. The city council listened and initially refused to notify Plan Change 14 that Lianne Dalziel had earlier described as one-size-fits all designed for Auckland, saying Christchurch already had a perfectly adequate city plan prepared after the quakes.
That pissed off the government no end and Minister David Parker reacted by appointing an investigator to force the CCC to notify, on pain of death (or something roughly equivalent) which it finally did early this year; albeit a modified version that took some account of the adverse effects of the original proposal.
However PC14 (forced on us by the legislation) still threatens Christchurch with seriously damaging unintended consequences, for no discernable benefits, even in the long term. It will still enable high-rise developer-led densification totally out of keeping with the city we said we wanted – a healthy city that lets the sun in, has ample green spaces, lots of trees and encourages environmentally friendly transport options.
Worst of all everyone agrees the plan will not produce more affordable housing .
It is against that background that about a dozen residents’ groups have this month submitted to the IHP against PC14 (or soon will be) arguing for a pause and a serious rethink (see letter attached and the petition organised by RBK at https://www.change.org/StopPlanChange14)
PC14 has been undemocratic. PC13 Heritage and PC14 Housing were merged. Issues such as protecting trees in the Memorial Avenues, agreed to by the City Council were sidelined. The division of hearings into lay and experts assumes that people living in the suburbs for decades know a lot less than the consultants and public servants about their neighbourhoods. This is not always the case and plans beased on Auckland and Wellington models does not necessarily fit Christchurch planning.
Most of the suburban residents groups usually forget to mention the impact of PC14 on the CBD and central city residential neighbourhoods. Will remind Tony of this,again; the recommended change us up to 90m tall in cbd (current max is 28m) and 32m in some neighbourhoods. Without relief from workable recession planes.
I currently note that the “Combined Residents Association” does not speak for me, nor have that sought feedback from the residents the claim to represent.
Not once has our residents association reached out to seek the input of people living in my area before deciding their position, nor does it appear that the make up of our residents group is representative in terms of demographics of the area they represent.
It makes a mockery of their name and they should immediately change their names to the Combined ‘Keep people out of the Housing Market’ group.
If you think that housing is affordable in chch, you are living in a dream land. Right now it is severely unaffordable and that is simply because the market is being keep by choice in a state of artificially constrained supply.
What is the residents association that you refer to that has failed to reach out to you Mike?
Combined Residents Associations – Christchurch (CRAC) is a collective of 22 individually registered citizens groups across Christchurch, each with similar views on PC14, that agreed to collaborate over this issue. Not all residents groups in Christchurch were of a like mind. Perhaps yours was one of those?
This is exactly why we are talking about this at Tuesday Club – to talk about the issue to talk about affordability, the resistance to intensification, the need to have a more Green and compact city. Because it seems we have divergent views. Also hoping Jim Lunday might join us.
Jim Lunday will be at the meeting tonight
I echo Mike’s point. The residents association that claims to represent my area does not represent my views at all. I think Tony is leading a group pushing very selfishly against PC14. He is using a lot of rubbish points like “Worst of all everyone agrees the plan will not produce more affordable housing” which is false (and simplistic). Some people think that, but others think the opposite and there is evidence to support it. One of the main points is that it will allow more (and better in some ways like insulation) housing in certain areas where people currently have no hope of purchasing, perhaps between Riccarton Road and Riccarton Bush for instance.