Govt retains right to second-guess changes to Auckland housing

2026-02-19 - 18:17

Analysis: Housing Minister Chris Bishop’s much telegraphed backdown over forcing high density housing plans across Auckland came with a late surprise – a requirement city politicians reveal where they will make changes before Cabinet agrees to a law change. It’s understood city leaders learned of that effective veto indirectly, only as Bishop announced the Government’s attempted solution to what has become a sensitive electoral issue for National and Act MPs. While the minister said the Government now wants Auckland Council to handle this hottest of political potatoes, the coalition has been unable to hand over the reins completely, inserting the unexpected condition into proceedings before it will agree to amend the law. As expected, Bishop announced the central government would relent over a direction that Auckland had to provide for a total of two million total homes in its current, complex planning change, cutting that capacity minimum to a still arbitrary 1.6m. That came after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon intervened in January, claiming to have heard Aucklanders’ feedback despite the thousands of formal public submissions still remaining out of reach of either national or local politicians. It has become increasingly clear the feedback was likely anecdotal responses to Luxon and other Auckland-based MPs over the summer holiday leading into this election year. It ought not to have come as too much of a surprise. Former National MP and Auckland councillor Maurice Williamson told the Government as long ago as September, when the council had to endorse the plan change, that it had “lost the plot”. Bishop has tried to execute a retreat, claiming the 2m figure was never the Government’s number and was no more than theoretical, but the current problems came from his insistence that this latest plan change, known as PC120, held the line on the total housing capacity identified for its predecessor. And that number was 2m. The requirement for Auckland Council to work out a quick summary of how it will shave those imaginary 400,000 extra homes off the planning map – and submit it to their Beehive masters – has rankled Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown and some councillors. It has also left officials puzzled by how they can move forward now through a political, planning and possibly legal minefield. Brown likened the 2m and 1.6m numbers to counting passing clouds, a meaningless exercise, and emphasised that Bishop’s cut announced on Thursday was what the Government now sought, not the council. The council, could opt to now do nothing, not seek the Cabinet approval and leave in place the PC120 process that is now underway with submissions before an independent panel. Bishop’s solution, which he says aims to balance the wishes of those in Auckland who want more housing intensification with those who have concerns about density, might not please all those who seem to have bent National MPs’ ears over the summer. The fears of those in outer suburbs such as Howick, the eastern bays and isthmus areas like Epsom still cannot be solved by Auckland Council simply exempting particular suburbs on the map with a stroke of a marker pen. The council faces a devilish task now to come up with what Bishop called “a summary of the provisional zoning changes the Council would make once we legislate” to submit to the Cabinet. He acknowledged the prospect of “legislating in the middle of a plan change process that is already underway .. is quite legally complicated” but even getting to that law change step is also complex. To avoid potential Environment Court challenges, Auckland Council is unlikely to take out whole suburbs from the intensification process. More likely, to reduce the theoretical housing capacity by 400,000 homes to 1.6m will involve detailed reductions in the strips and circles around transport hubs, major public transport routes, town centres and local centres. For example, where local centres might have seen land within 200m covered by the denser provisions that might have to be shaved down to property within 100m. That could well still occur in the Epsoms and Howicks that have been so voluble. It will be a highly detailed project, and the remaining denser areas will still apply to National MPs’ areas of personal or political concern. It is also an exercise that might not be sufficiently achievable to match Bishop’s wish for speed. He said “legislation will be introduced and progressed quickly to minimise disruption to the existing process.” The stipulation that Auckland Council work out its proposed capacity changes and submit them for Cabinet approval before the needed legislation became clear in a media standup from Act leader and Epsom MP David Seymour. Act is increasingly seen as having pushed within Government for ongoing direction before the law change. “We need to see what 1.6m looks like before we vote for it. When we voted for 2m, we hadn’t seen the maps from the council. They had kept them hidden and basically released them the next day,” Seymour said. Asked about Brown’s reluctance to submit proposals for Cabinet – or Wellington – approval, he delivered a barb of sorts: “I would suggest Wayne Brown be a bit of a democrat and actually help inform the public about what 1.6m looks like. “I don’t think he has the right to withhold information that’s important to many Aucklanders.” Questioned on Brown’s attributing some of the political change to elderly people in Epsom, Seymour said it was a time for maturity, then said he’d heard the mayor being referred to as “Wayne Biden” recently. What has become clear is that central government politicians want to influence the density map and then be able to show a result for their efforts when it comes to election campaign time. Some coverage of the Government’s backdown has attributed it to political pressure from the heritage and character lobbies. But the Bishop solution still requires the high intensity housing rules to apply around the new City Rail Link stations and key inner city and transport districts in which many of the older Auckland neighbourhoods exist. He told the Committee for Auckland at Thursday’s announcement that of the targeted 2 million, now 1.6m, a total of fully 1.4m to 1.5m was to come from those inner city and transport areas. “The council will still be required to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, including enabling greater development around rapid transit stations and the City Rail Link, but after meeting those requirements they have real flexibility.” That “flexibility” means finding room in the wider suburbs for a nominal capacity of up to 200,000 more rather than 600,000 houses. If the council can come up with that part to the Cabinet’s satisfaction, some time soon, then the Government will agree to change the law and set the new capacity requirement. It has outlined a hybrid planning hearings process that will allow whatever parts the council withdraws to revert to the existing Auckland Unitary Plan rules and then for renewed public submissions if needed on the parts that are to be changed. Bishop says the capacity rethink, law change and further steps in the hearings process should not affect the overall timeline for the new plan change, which is already set to run until May 2027.