Opponents of Auckland’s planning rule changes for greater intensification argue that Christchurch has been given a softer target.

Character Coalition chairwoman Sally Hughes said RMA Minister Chris Bishop had allowed Christchurch 30 years of zoned development, while she claims Auckland must provide more than 100 years.

Auckland councillor Christine Fletcher and Ōrākei Local Board member Troy Churton highlighted the contrast between the country’s two largest cities, saying Auckland had capitulated to the Government’s “golden number” that had to be met or exceeded.

However, Bishop said Auckland Council was not required to zone for 100 years of development, and noted that the requirements for the two cities differed.

Public consultation is under way on Plan Change 120, a controversial council proposal for a major makeover of Auckland’s skyline.

It would allow for greater intensification, which opponents claim would provide capacity for two million homes over the coming decades – a prospect that has delighted a pro-housing group.

Plan Change 120 also restricts the development of about 12,000 properties at risk from floods and landslides.

Christchurch has been allowed by the Government to withdraw from intensifying across a wider area of the city. Mayor Phil Mauger says: "We know what's best for our city and its unique character."

A series of public meetings, featuring presentations from council planners, is being held to help residents understand the proposals in their neighbourhoods and prepare submissions before the December 19 deadline.

Among the concerns are the proposal to upzone suburban areas of single houses to Mixed Housing Urban for three-storey terrace housing and four-storey housing with a resource consent and the impact on physical and social infrastructure.

Character Coalition chairwoman Sally Hughes. Photo / Corey Fleming

Hughes said Bishop’s different approach to Auckland and Christchurch was “demonstrably unfair” and created a double standard.

“Christchurch is being allowed to plan for 65,000 dwellings, which is approximately 30 years of housing supply, while Auckland is expected to plan for more than two million, well over 100 years’ worth.

“This is not justifiable. No city in the world tries to foresee more than 100 years of future growth.”

Many people were upset with plans for six- and 15-storey apartment blocks in long-established character housing areas in St Marys Bay, Parnell, Kingsland and Mt Eden, she said.

Greater intensification is being allowed in those suburbs because they are near main public transport routes and the central city.

Bishop said Auckland had been allowed to withdraw from Plan Change 78, allowing three three-storey houses on most sections. In its place is Plan Change 120.

He said Auckland, as New Zealand’s largest city, played a critical role in productivity and growth, and its requirements were different from Christchurch’s.

RMA Minister Chris Bishop said Auckland plays a critical role in productivity and growth, and is different to Christchurch.

Auckland needed to retain the same housing capacity as in Plan Change 78, while Christchurch could withdraw Plan Change 14 only if its district plan provided 30 years of feasible housing capacity, based on Stats NZ’s high-demand projections plus a 20% buffer, he said. That capacity had to be enabled in planning terms and be commercially viable for developers.

“There is no feasible capacity test for Auckland. This means the test applying to Christchurch City Council is in some sense more stringent than the test applying to Auckland.”

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger was “over the moon” that the Government had allowed the council to withdraw from intensifying across a wider area of the city.

“We know what’s best for our city, its unique character, environment and needs, so this decision means we can keep the momentum going with planning rules that make Christchurch more liveable,” he said.

In an opinion article for the Herald, Fletcher and Churton said Christchurch had successfully pushed back on the 3 x 3-storey requirements and agreed on a 30-year high-growth capacity with a 20% buffer.

They said Plan Change 120 was a capitulation to the Government, saying the council had a fast-track plan to enable natural hazard controls, but had not challenged the Government’s blanket approach.

Fletcher told the Herald: “Any radical rezoning to achieve intensification must be evidence-based. What evidence is there that Auckland requires a capacity of two million homes over 100 years”, saying that “a far more reasonable target” would be to allow for 1.2-1.4 million houses.

What’s more, Fletcher and Churton said, under Plan Change 120, areas outside walking distance of frequent public transport and town centres have been upzoned for mostly three-storey townhouses to meet the “irrational two million threshold”.

Currently, suburban Auckland contains around 326,000 standalone houses and 190,000 terraced homes or apartments. Under Plan Change 120, those figures would effectively reverse. Over the coming decades, the capacity for terraced homes and apartments is projected to rise to about 370,000, while standalone houses decline to 140,000.

The shift would have been more dramatic under Plan Change 78, which envisaged 427,000 terraced homes and apartments, leaving just 14,000 standalone houses.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is happy with the planning rules for his city.

The Coalition for More Homes has been “stoked to see more homes” planned for Auckland, with spokesman Scott Caldwell describing the overall capacity as promising.

He has emphasised the importance of aligning housing with existing infrastructure, saying it helps with affordability, the environment, and people having close connections to the city centre.

A report this year from the council’s chief economist, Gary Blick, showed nearly 100,000 homes have been built over the past seven years, climbing from 10,200 in 2018 to 18,100 in 2023.