RMA Reform Bill

The new RMA reform bill (Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill) has certainly caused a stir.  However, in some ways, it has been surprising how little comment such a radical change has actually caused.

So far, public discussion of the Bill has centred around the increased heights and the possibility of having three units on a typical section.  However, the impact of subdivision does not seem to have been widely reported or understood.

A key facet of the Bill is that it would allow subdivision of residential sections to any size, as long as it could be shown that a house would fit on the site and comply with the permitted standards.  Using a small house of 50m2, this means that a minimum size of 100m2 is entirely possible.

The implications of this are potentially quite significant.  A quarter acre could be split into several development parcels, each of which could have 3 permitted units.  One example would be to divide into four lots, with 12 units in total.  Or a more intensive development might create seven sites, which could be used to build a total of 21 apartments.  Both of these scenarios would be a permitted activity, with no design standards.

This is a radical change, but the bill goes further.  The height limit is 11m (plus an extra 1m for a roof).  A four storey building will usually have an internal height of 10.5m, meaning that the Bill as drafted may allow four storeys rather than three.  There is also allowance for common walls between development parcels.  The 21 apartments could be built to four storeys in a continuous block from front to rear of the site.  This is a quite different proposition to a duplex in your back garden.

Whilst this is entirely possible, it is an extreme scenario.  But the idea of a terrace of 6, 9 or 12 units being built on a typical suburban section is not so far-fetched for most sites, as this is a common scenario in current medium density zones.

Presented below is a spectrum of development that would be permitted under the Bill, on a 15m x 50m section, from small infill development to a block of apartments.

 

The above all appear to be permitted scenarios under the Bill, or possible with a subdivision consent that Council’s will be required to grant.

The subdivision clauses in the bill have not attracted much attention, but they will act as a multiplier of the impacts that have attracted public discussion.  There are certainly benefits to increasing development opportunities, but as urban designers, we need to consider the consequences of this dramatic change to our planning legislation.

7 thoughts on “RMA Reform Bill”

  1. What does this mean for cross lease properties? I assume we still have to all sell up at once to a developer or subdivide (5 seperate 90 sq m very old houses on a 3000 sq m cross lease in Auckland, 10 mins from a train station). I too am concerned about slum buildings, as we are already seeing it in Auckland, (no sun, no carpark, no grass, future leaky home style townhouses). On the other side, I’m also very pleased to hear more homes will be able to be built. I wish houses were affordable and healthy for everyone in NZ.

  2. When I first heard this my immediate reaction was; ‘at last and how inspiring to remove the need for a Resource Consent because, alongside contending with the current housing demand, the change will make developers/ owners/ designers more confident about taking on development and there will be more efficient use of existing land, a reduction in sprawl and an increase in housing type options.

    However, as the article alludes, the disturbing part of the announcement is lack of detail.
    David Hattam suspects the change without any control, possible consultation or more detail could create unattractive development and generally unappealing buildings. While the potential for this is high, my particular concern is how the spaces between the buildings are treated and also the ability of the infrastructure, beyond the boundaries, to deal with increased density.
    These include all the issues commonly stated such as traffic congestion, water, sewer and refuse disposal, water and electricity supply, privacy and green space.

    To initially deal with these issues I believe there needs to be better communication between the private sector and public authorities. In my experience in the private architectural sector (with an education in urban and environmental planning) there is a lack of communication between the two and consequently a development of lack of trust and confidence.
    The CCC Urban Design Panel (UDP), supposedly setup to aid and improve the quality of development, is often only seen as obstructionist and even amongst some planners, discussion with them is to be avoided. In fact, many of these planners are only engaged by developers to ‘tweak’ developments to avoid potential communication with the UDP and those planners are happy to provide the service.

    If both parties are to cooperate and actually contribute to quality change in housing density standards then the Urban Design Panel, or any other authoritative or regulatory body, needs to be quicker, more approachable and display greater common sense, while developers need to display more patience and regard for the broader environment and the general public.

    As an aside, a recent article ‘The Press’ 09.11.21 shows a 3 storey typology amongst low-rise suburbia. While this image does its best to disturb, if an aerial picture was shown of low rise, low density development (which there are many) I suggest that sense would be even greater.
    But it is irrelevant to show such images because the most important issues happen at actual street level. Factors such as accessibility, movement, legibility and a balance between public and private space are more influential for well being and for the production of an efficient and amenable built environment.
    There are many examples of this type of development around the world and I would even suggest they are more attractive and amenable, with the possible exception of those in Britain, than the predominantly low rise typology we currently have in Christchurch.

  3. I hail the removal of ‘red tape’ to encourage the intensification of our urban environments!

    The introduction of Medium Density Residential Standards as part of the Resource Management Amendment Bill, if done correctly, could be the ignition for an urban renaissance – our one chance to transform the sprawling low density neighbourhoods that characterise our cities, into a more compact and efficient urban pattern – through quality intensification: the creation of perimeter blocks with continuous street frontages and inner block courtyards or gardens.

    Alternatively, these new standards, if left as they are worded at the moment, could ring in the age of slum building! Seriously, what’s currently proposed is an absolute shocker! It appears that in the haste of shoring up more housing supply, no thought has been spared on the urban form or living conditions that will follow once these new standards are written into law.

    I’ll try to explain the issue: Originally our low density neighbourhoods featured modest houses on large sections, often referred to as quarter acre blocks. The houses were built reasonably close to the road, with a generous front yard and an even more generous back garden. These large sections were great, as they allowed residents to grow some of their own fruit and vegetables, have some chickens and whatever else was needed to be somewhat self-sustainable.

    As our cities started to sprawl and pressure built to accommodate more people, we started to subdivide. One large section was split into two or three sections, each with a house on it. Only the original house now has a road frontage – the back sections are accessed via a small right of way. Houses on back sections are surrounded by high fences – sometimes as close as 1m from the house, making for some pretty dire views from the window. There is no street to overlook and no proper garden left either.

    The development of back sections has never been a good idea, but it has been pursued as an easy and cheap fix to increase density. The ensuing subdivision and development pattern makes further quality intensification that much harder, because of the value locked up in back sections. Comprehensive redevelopment simply becomes too expensive in most areas – think about the number of houses that you would have to buy!

    And herein lies one of the major problems with the proposed new standards: At the time of writing this, the proposed new rules do not distinguish between street facing sections and back sections. They allow any urban land owner indiscriminately to redevelop their land and significantly increase the net density. Increased density and new housing stock translate into higher value. Even higher value locked up in back sections makes their comprehensive redevelopment and restructuring an economic pipe dream – yet that is exactly what’s needed for quality intensification to create sanitary housing and appealing living conditions.

    If we think living conditions on back sections are a bit dire now, then that’s only going to get worse – much worse! The new rules propose a main outlook space of 3m x 3m as being sufficient! Imagine that with the proposed maximum height of up to 12m and funny daylight angles (height in relation to boundary rules) starting from 6m height: You’ll be looking at suburbs of outlandish looking buildings, housing cave dwellers, who desperately cluster around light wells!

    On most sections, the new standards would triple the number of floors, while limiting the number of dwellings to three. This will flood the market with more overpriced large houses that nobody can afford. We need smaller and more affordable units!

    So here is my suggestion: Loosening development controls to instigate intensification is a great move that I fully support – however, it has to be done with a desirable urban form in mind – perimeter blocks, where rows of houses line attractive streets, as seen elsewhere in the world. These patterns are known to achieve exactly what we want: higher urban densities, while maintaining very desirable living conditions.

    In order to achieve this outcome, the new liberal development standards must be limited to street facing sections only!

    Back sections should either be turned into courtyards, gardens or be comprehensively redeveloped for higher density living. This cannot be done on a liberal section by section basis. It would include amalgamating various land parcels and might require some scrutiny by territorial authorities to ensure adequate living conditions.

    Once we are clear that the new standards will only cover street facing sections, then there are some rules under Part 2, Building Standards that need to be reconsidered in order to maximise development potential and achieve continuous street frontages:

    Ditch the height to boundary rule, fix front yards (along the street) to say 3m, no side yards or windows in side walls unless in a corner situation (side walls become common walls), min. 3m back yard and ditch building coverage and impervious surface ratios (they make no sense in this context of vastly varying section sizes and the desire for continuous urban form). Instead, I would consider adding a maximum building depth of say 12m to avoid dark internal spaces.

    Once the permissible building envelope is fixed by these rules, there is absolutely no reason for limiting development to three dwellings per section. Get rid of this rule altogether to allow much more affordable walk-up apartment typologies. The building code provides for minimum sizes for habitable spaces, which will ultimately limit the number of dwellings that are achievable within the permitted building envelope.

    Nelson should sit tight and see how exactly these standard will pan out before we put our hand up for being included. The standards may not end up being what we want for our city at all. In that case we should rewrite our Resource Management Plan to enable more liberal development I hail the removal of ‘red tape’ to encourage the intensification of our urban environments!

  4. Hi David, this is an interesting shift. Not knowing the NZ system all that well, where do these prescribed allowable development standards apply – is this applicable only in certain zones etc? And what controls are in place to ensure diversity of product delivery rather than highest/best in every scenario?

    1. HI Christian. This is the minimum level of development that must be permitted throughout certain cities – Auckland, Christchurch, Tauranga, Hamilton and Wellington. There are no controls on diversity of product, only some very basic bulk and location standards.

  5. Thank you for the post and the visualisations. It isn’t difficult to then apply what you show clearly to a whole block and see what kind of urban living we’d be faced with. Anything more than what you show in 1&2 will lead to many privately owned narrow streets serving 6 to 21 households that run perpendicular to the public streets . They will have no to little room for anything pleasant such as a tree or some plants to know what the season is.
    Would we ever design our public streets like this? Why is it ok to make people live with/on (private) streets like this? I don’t believe the general public automatically see or visualise the implications so it’s not exactly going to be a market choice.
    If we’re happy with streets like this, and if it’s all about quantity, we could also narrow all existing public streets and add more housing on the street in front of and in between existing houses.

    In my view the solution to achieving quantity with some balancing relief (such as trees and open space where I can get to know my neighbours in a comfortable neutral zone) lies in coming up with rules and strategies at the block and street scale, not at the individual parcel scale. Yes it’s not what the district plans have always done. Maybe it is time to realise what got us here will not get us there. What the amendment bill is doing is not radical, it’s doing what we’ve always done (i.e direct rules to individual parcels), simply with a lot less checks and balances.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top