The government requiring the council to zone for more housing in Auckland is dead, long live the government requiring the council to zone for more housing in Auckland.
One of the governments key housing polices when was to make optional the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) requirement for councils to allow up to three storey town houses throughout our cities, something National made a bipartisan deal with the former Labour government to introduce in the first place. Most councils have already completed their plan changes to implement the changes but Auckland is one of the few who hasn’t, and wasn’t even close to finishing.
Yesterday the government announced that they were allowing Auckland Council to withdraw Plan Change 78, which was implementing the MDRS standards as well as National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) which requires even higher densities around key centres and public transport stations. But the council will have new requirements in in it’s place.
City-shaping changes are coming to New Zealand’s largest city, ensuring that Auckland can fully harness the economic growth benefits of the new City Rail Link, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Auckland Minister Simeon Brown say.
The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill (the Bill) has been reported back to Parliament today by the Environment Committee, containing significant changes to enable housing growth in our largest cities.
“After many months, Auckland Council and the Government have reached agreement to free up more land for housing, particularly around City Rail Link (CRL) stations. These are some of the most significant changes to the shape of Auckland since the Auckland Unitary Plan,” Mr Bishop says.
“It doesn’t make sense that we have single story houses on quarter acre sections a stone’s throw away from stations that, in a year or so, will see trains every few minutes.
“The Government and the Council are investing billions in CRL and have a shared vision for stations that become hubs for public transport, mixed use development and new housing.
“Successive Governments and Councils have failed to grasp this opportunity for economic growth in New Zealand’s largest city. This is how modern, growing cities all around the world operate, and now it’s Auckland’s turn.”
“Today’s announcements are a result of Auckland Council and the Government working together to deliver a plan for more housing that works for Auckland. The Bill now has the effect of abolishing the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in Auckland while requiring more housing density around key public transport corridors – a common sense solution for Auckland,” Auckland Minister Simeon Brown says.
We only need to look at the impact the Unitary Plan had on building consents to see why allowing more housing is so important. Building consents for new houses soared and peaked in 2022 at almost 22,000 per year but have come back down again to less than 14,000 largely due to the economy and government policy.
New plan change for Auckland
“Auckland’s intensification plan change, PC78, has been underway since 2022. Progress has been slow for many reasons, including the Auckland floods. The intensification plan change process does not allow Auckland to “downzone” certain areas due to natural hazard risk – only to “upzone” them – and the Council wrote to the government asking them to fix this problem,” Mr Bishop says.
“The Government has therefore agreed to change the Bill to allow Auckland to withdraw PC78. However, the government is determined to unlock housing capacity in Auckland and fix our housing crisis and has taken steps to ensure this is achieved.
“Earlier in the year I directed Auckland Council to bring forward decisions on the parts of PC78 that relate to the city centre, requiring final decisions to be made by the end of May. Auckland Council met this requirement, finalising this part of PC78 on 22 May 2025.
“These decisions made by the council are a step forward in increasing development capacity in Auckland’s CBD, but there is more work to be done.
“The Bill as reported back from the committee now allows Auckland Council to remove the remaining parts of PC78, but requires them to process a new plan change urgently. This plan change must be notified by 10 October this year, and must enable housing capacity equal to or greater than that enabled by PC78.
A new plan change notified by the 10 October doesn’t leave a lot of time for the council to prepare and notify a new plan change which makes me think that they’ll need to reuse a lot of the work they’ve done for MDRS anyway. Getting it done by then will be even tricker with local body elections coming up – voting opens 9 September and closes on 11 October. Typically the last council meeting of the term is right at the end of September so having upzoning decisions in the middle of the election could create some interesting outcomes.
It’s good that they’ll be required to to enable equal or greater housing capacity than PC78, though I’m concerned that council planners will take the opportunity to scale back zoning throughout the inner isthmus areas and push it to other parts of the region.
One thing that will help make up those capacity numbers is they’ll need to address the gaping hole in PC78 they absurdly left around the potential light rail corridor.
I always thought it was particularly absurd that the council left off changes around the three train stations in this corridor given the NPS-UD standards would apply regardless of what happened with light rail. So, interestingly, there was one additional catch with the announcement.
“As I’ve indicated, the Government is keen to see greater density around public transport, particularly City Rail Link stations. The Bill therefore now also requires Auckland to allow for greater density around the key CRL stations of Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Kingsland, and Morningside.
“Auckland Council must enable within a walkable distance from these stations heights and densities reflective of the higher demand for housing and business in these areas. This requirement goes further than the existing requirements under the NPS-UD, and I expect heights and densities that ensure we make the most of the opportunities offered by this transformational transport project.
“The government is also considering whether further amendments to the Bill to fully maximise development opportunities around other CRL stations as necessary, and I will have more to say in due course.”
The report from the Environment Select Committee doesn’t give any extra indication of how these requirements go further than the NPS-UD but does say that they’ll be subject to relevant qualifying matters so I suspect council planners will absolutely use this to keep these areas as unchanged as they possibly can.
Processing...
What’s with the planners not wanting to increase density? Do they live in some agrarian dream where Auckland’s population is less than Te Kuiti? Leafy suburb councillors I can understand. They have low density loving voters in their ears, but planners what’s driving them.
Ummmm, do you think employees usually go against what their bosses ask of them, even if the ask is conveyed in a wink-wink-we-didn’t-say-it manner? Also, a lot of the profession has been acting that way for decades. You can make direct demands, but changing minds and habits is harder.
I mean my own profession is the same. Nobody claims that they want 12-lane motorways like the worst LA fever dream. Yet in the small and big decision, there’s always a shade of cars first, and often cars only. Decades of CPD training and arguments and research about how this is literally damaging our cities and a waste of money to progress everything with such a car-focus, yet it keeps being done. So I am not surprised at all that the planning profession in turn has their ways of screwing up exactly what they are told to improve (cities).
This sums it up well:
Planning departments aren’t neutral experts—they’re institutions traumatized by decades of NIMBY meetings, encoding unreasonable opposition into ‘professional wisdom.’
From https://bsky.app/profile/sushil.bsky.social/post/3lrd4ucn2z22r
Hi Matt, that’s a wonderful post you linked to. The post does a great job of explaining the systemic issue with planning consultations and how the NIMBYs showing up reliably to oppose everything has skewed the process to create technical frameworks designed around obstruction.
“NIMBYs have discovered, perhaps accidentally, the optimal strategy for influencing land use policy. Their goal—total opposition to change—is beautifully simple. They need no technical expertise, no understanding of zoning bylaws, no familiarity with planning theory. They simply say no, loudly and repeatedly, until the system bends to accommodate them.”
“YIMBYs face a far more complex challenge. They want more housing. But unlike NIMBYs, whose brazenly unreasonable demands the system has learned to accommodate, YIMBYs often get trapped trying to engage constructively with technical frameworks designed around obstruction.”
So for once I have to applaud Bishop & Brown for the simplifying the system in their desire “to see greater density around public transport”
There isn’t any evidence of this, its just ad hominem by the author. The original unitary plan had lots of upzming in the Isthmus. It was politicians that drove it all out to west and south Auckland.
So get your facts straight.
Yeah in Greenlane there is upzoning next to and around the underused railway station however only minimal redevelopment is happening.
I don’t think it will have to be equal to MDRS before. That was voted down by cabinet.
Cabinet may have decided against it, IDK, but the text of the bill from Select Committee requires (from the preamble)
“Our proposed amendments would permit Auckland Council to withdraw its IPI in full or in part without ministerial approval when the bill commenced. If it withdrew its IPI, it would need to notify a new plan using the streamlined planning process to:
provide at least the same housing capacity as Plan Change 78 (as notified) would have enabled give effect to the intensification policies of the NPS-UD 2020
enable heights and densities commensurate with the greater of likely future demand for housing and business use, or accessibility to business and services in the walkable catchments of the Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Kingsland, and Morningside Stations (subject to any relevant qualifying matters).”
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0105/latest/whole.html
Warm up those bulldozers and heavy rollers, let us flatten some houses!!!!!!!!!!!
The time has arrived for us to morph into a CITY!!!
Apartments and apartments and more apartments…I will hold my breath but maybe 2026 will bring us into the modern world?
bah humbug
Great that they are opening up Kingland around the station, but lets take a quick look into what actually happens on the ground when it comes to 5-6 apartments in Kingsland
– The Electric, site cleared, 5 levels – consented – completely stalled
– The Geroge? Townhouses, absolutely awful. Started construction and have stalled
-Station no 580 – 6 levels, completely cancelled
Maxxus 585 New North Rd – 6 levels, site cleared then stalled
Kiwi Apartments 317 – 319 New North Road – Consented, 9 levels, cancelled
Lets not pretend that there aren’t massive issues with our apartment building sector and that just allowing 6 levels by law is going to flood these places with apartments. The reason the Unitary Plan and/or MDRS has worked for right or wrong is that its the easiest way for the developer to make a wquick buck without having to worry about the urban form it leaves on our city.
Its a good start, but I highly doubt we will see much change for some time. They really need to remove height rules, 6 is a stupid number designed not to help anyone.
There’s also the barrier for people wanting to purchase in the form of previous problems with structural and cladding issues which are continuing to this day.
A lot if that is to do with the follow on from COVID/recession, the delays to the CRL etc.
Personally I think except in very very rare circumstances, view shafts and other maximum height restrictions should all be lifted for property within 400m of a train station. Be great to see a bunch of 5-10 storey apartment buildings in the area. Maybe even some taller towers.
Mixed purpose ground floors for shops etc too please.
Rezoning the light rail corridor for higher density housing makes it much more likely light rail will happen. Rather than trying to concentrate development along rail corridors and busways, high density development should also be allowed in areas within walking or cycling distance of the central city and along frequent bus services. Some of the isthmus bus services are much more frequent than the train service, and have fewer reliability problems.
Its also pretty flat too. Dominion and Sandringham road are ideal for high density housing
I’d just settle for 24/7 buslanes at this stage….
This is ridiculous. If all Auckland Council’s planning department does is spend 5 years trying their hardest to not implement the NPS-UD, I’m not sure why we have a planning department. We’re paying a group of people to come up with excuses for why they don’t want to do their jobs.
I wonder if the higher density may actually result in less housing. No one will be building 3 story terraces on land zoned for much higher density, but I am not so sure there is enough demand for apartments built around every train station either. So will we end up with land banking?
Depends how much the land costs and how much they can sell what they want to build. Developers would care about margins and profit above how high they can build. If its significantly cheaper to bang up more townhouses they will
The land may be too expensive for townhouses if it is land banked. Not saying this will happen, but it is a possibility.
Looking at the myriads of failing developments (and developers) in Auckland, it seems the most critical thing developers are interested in is actually how quickly they can build.
MDRS created a situation where hundreds of cowboys flooded the market with poorly made and cramped builds. Some of these cowboys were able to beat the market by flogging their s it boxes to property speculators (who were hoping to do the same).
The rest are now marooned and Auckland is left with the absurd situation where we have thousands of houses so small and so poorly made that nobody wants to actually buy them.
And this blog views this as a success!
We’ve got to learn a lesson from this gock up.
Can we see the inside map
People working with the crypto-currency of land value are really concerned about zoning. People wanting somewhere to live are more concerned about design. A Plan Change isn’t a good way to influence design. Urban Development Agencies may be almost the only way to manage that. Bank return on investment is not the friend of good Development.
Why is Grafton not considered to be a ‘key CRL station’ but Kingsland and Morningside are?
This blog is capable of a great deal of nuance on every other issue but not density for some reason.
Pointing to the amount of consented and built homes under MDRS as being a self-evident success ignores the question of whether (or how) they’ve lead to improvements in the lives of Aucklanders.
Personally, I wouldn’t wish the low quality infill shoe-boxes being built on my worst enemy and I can’t help but suspect that these amenity-less hovels will drive social problems in the future (I wonder if the author of this particular article has even been inside a recent infill; let alone whether they live in one …)
Far more heartening work has been achieved by outfits like Simplicity, Ockham and Eke Panuku (where the downsides of dense living are ameliorated by good design and the provision of community facilities).
However, these types of developments don’t take advantage of MDRS and instead must still travel the byzantine path prescribed the RMA and Building Act.
Precisely. MDRS are a great example of why central government shouldn’t try to write planning rules. They don’t have the institutional knowledge.
Rather, they should set the outcome, and let the Councils work out the details of how to achieve those outcomes, which don’t have to totally disregard amenity in the process.
What’s everyone’s guess on the date the MDRS will be abolished in Auckland? Will the council notify the minister immediately once it becomes an Act?
I’m wondering if the council will do an announcement before the MDRS is announced. If they do, they could be flooded with rushed applications for more crappy 3 level sausage flats.