Inner neighbourhood residents hope law changes could ease intensive development

Thursday, 4 July 2019

Multi-unit developments are popping up in inner city suburbs like Phillipstown.

Residents of neighbourhoods around central Christchurch have joined forces to fight the effects of intensive housing policies and are keen to challenge the law.

The newly-formed Inner City Action Network (Ican) represents residents on the fringes of the central city and surrounding suburbs such as Richmond, Addington and Phillipstown.

The residents say new housing developments are overstepping the boundaries of the city council's district plan, causing environmental issues and destroying neighbourhood amenity.

At a meeting on Wednesday, members of the group aired concerns about zoning rules and consenting processes to city council staff, councillors and community board members.

Cr Yani Johanson says the 'strategic direction' set for the council's district plan can be challenged.

Hayley Guglietta says laws allowing high density housing need to be challenged.

* Unhappy neighbours trigger urgent council look at housing rules

* New Christchurch development rules 'will lead to slums'**

Ican member and Richmond resident Greg Partridge said they were fed up with new developments wrecking small streets and quiet neighbourhoods, some of which were now clogged with traffic and parked cars.

He told the meeting that with Christchurch 'already shattered' by the earthquakes and widespread mental health effects, the council was obliged to 'make sure what remains isn't wrecked'.

John Higgins, resource consents manager for the council, told the group the post-quake Land Use Recovery Plan's minimum housing densities for inner neighbourhoods, and strict rules on when resource consent applications could be publicly notified, gave them little discretion in handling some aspects of consent bids.

The Resource Management Act has rules for individual developments, but not the cumulative effect of them in a neighbourhood, Higgins said.

Under resource consent rules, higher density housing development applications cannot be publicly notified if the effects are considered less than minor. Protected special amenity areas in the central city were abolished by the central government after the earthquakes.

Cr Yani Johanson said while the Resource Management Act, Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act and Christchurch Central Recovery Plan guided the council's district plan, 'I don't see any reason why we can't start challenging that strategic direction now'.

Cr Deon Swiggs said while government statutes could be changed only at central government level, the district plan could be influenced though the public submission process.

Community board member Sally Buck said neighbourhoods were being ruined by 'huge residential developments and masses of cars'.

Central city resident Axel Wilke said having no on-street parking for visitors was deterring people from buying central city homes. He believed Christchurch should have residents-only parking areas like Wellington and Auckland.

Partridge said his narrow street was lined with cars because units had no off-street parking, and emergency vehicles could not access homes, putting residents at risk.

After recently declaring a climate emergency, the council should not be allowing developers to cut down trees to build intensive housing, he said.

'Shouldn't the council be walking the walk, not just talking the talk?' he asked.

Inner city west resident Diana Shand said loss of character and amenity was a deterrent when Christchurch was trying to attract inner city residents.

'We want to get rid of the (Christchurch Central) Recovery Plan, which is disastrous.'

Richmond resident Murray James called for the council to challenge the laws with a judicial review.

'Developers have big cheque books but residents' associations just don't have the money to test the law.'

Ican facilitator Hayley Guglietta said the wellbeing of inner neighbourhood residents needed to be given more consideration.

They were frustrated a review of higher density developments promised by the council had not been done, and by council comments that its hands was tied on higher density housing, she said.

Trying to challenge the laws was 'absolutely' what they wanted to do, but they lacked the funds, Guglietta said.

'It's a central government issue. Our planning is impacted by legislation that is designed to solve housing problems in Auckland. But how do we get it changed?

'We find ourselves bullied by developers, but the rules allow them to do what they're doing.'