History

Members who have been following this saga closely will know the history. Central government, with support from both Labour and National parties, passed legislation which broadly mandated housing intensification across many towns and cities across all of New Zealand, including a requirement to provide for 3 dwellings of up to 3 storeys on most residential sections. In Auckland, this led to Plan Change 78 setting out revised zonings for Auckland City. CBRRA were submitters on this proposal.

Perhaps because of the public response, the legislation was then amended to give Auckland Council more discretion on where development should occur. The legislation still required Council to zone for some 2 million dwellings – well in excess of the actual growth trends for the city. These changed requirements were reflected in Plan Change 120. Once again, CBRRA made what we believe was a very comprehensive, evidence-based submission of some 14 pages.

Current Legal Status

Public opposition to the revised requirements continued. Central government again amended its

legislation, passing the Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Act 2026.

The Act:

• Provides Auckland Council with more flexibility to respond to submissions on its Plan Change 120.

• Provides flexibility by reducing the minimum housing capacity requirement from 2 million homes to 1.4 million, whilst also giving Auckland Council greater discretion over where housing density is enabled, allowing it to better align growth with infrastructure capacity, public transport access, and local constraints.

• Provides a mechanism for changing housing capacity requirements that were governed by earlier legislation, including addressing transitional issues relating to removal of the earlier requirements for Medium Density Residential Standards.

• Exempts Auckland Council from requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-US) to undertake a Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) and review its Future Development Strategy (FDS) or prepare a new FDS, to inform the 2027 Long-Term Plan.

Implications for Cockle Bay

Auckland Council is now considering how to respond to this changed legislation. It has developed 6 possible options to reflect the revised legislation, with varying levels of dwelling numbers. It must now decide which of these it should recommend to the Independent Hearing Panel which has been set up to consider submissions and make detailed recommendations to Council. Maps showing the 2 (of 6) options currently preferred by Council are here.

We are encouraged by the probable removal of the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings (THAB) zoning (22 metres high) along Litten and Sandspit Roads; and the probable retention of constraints on developments in natural hazard areas (although we recognise that this may have implications for property owners who already have properties in such locations).

We are concerned that the Plan Change 78 qualifying matter of water and wastewater may not appear in the latest proposal. One scenario is that this lack of sewerage capacity may force Watercare into considering re-introducing a requirement for sewage holding tanks for new developments in Cockle Bay. This was a condition if the Steward Motors site had been approved. Watercare’s current position is that sewage holding tanks will not be used in the future, even where there is insufficient network capacity. The timetable for proceeding with decision making is:

• Decision on preferred potential scenario: 9 June 2026

• Consultation with local boards and iwi: TBD

• Decision on whether to propose amendments to PC120 or withdraw in part: July 2026

• Public consultation and submissions (4 weeks): August 2026

• Public Hearings: October – November 2026

• Independent Hearing Panel Considerations: TBD

• Council decision: End June 2027

Next Steps for CBRRA

Whilst the above steps are taking place we are continuing to try to put pressure on central government to clarify their attitude and policies to managing infrastructure costs. Increasing the sewerage capacity to accommodate very increased housing densities in an area such as Cockle Bay will require multi million dollar investments. This then extends to increasing capacity in the main sewer lines and pumping stations, originally designed for a single house zone but now required to carry much greater volumes to the sewage treatment plant. Similar considerations apply to stormwater, especially as permeable areas decrease. The list can go on – power supplies; telecommunications; hospitals and medical facilities; etc. And as far as local government costs are concerned all this will be expected to be paid for when central government is also looking to impose a rates cap.

When making our verbal submission on Plan Change 78 we were told that infrastructure costs could not be considered when determining areas for intensification. It did not feature when Council identified areas for intensification under Plan Change 120.

Several months after approaching Hon. Christopher Bishop’s office we have received a response which can be read either that infrastructure costs can be considered as a factor that would permit targeted, phased development, or that managing infrastructure costs not a problem because development will happen gradually, and so can infrastructure capacity upgrades. We will be approaching Simeon Brown’s office for clarification of government policy. Councillor Bo Burns has been making enquiries on our behalf and has been advised that we can also take the issue up directly with the Housing Intensification and Resilience Independent Hearings Panel before hearings commence.