Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Higher and denser housing planned for Lower Hutt
News from Hutt City Council
Hutt City Council has today released its proposed change to the District Plan that will allow for higher and denser housing across Lower Hutt, as required under new government rules.
The proposed plan change is open for public submissions until 20 September. This feedback will be considered by an independent panel at a public hearing in the first half of next year.
Full details, zone maps and how to make a submission are at hutt.city/PC56.
The new government rules aim to increase housing supply and affordability across Lower Hutt and other main centres by loosening current rules on development.
The Council may only limit the government’s new rules in specific circumstances and has identified those areas as being at risk from natural hazards, heritage areas, or sites of significance to Māori.
Hutt City Council Interim Director Environment & Sustainability Alison Geddes said that although the key changes to the housing rules are mandated by the legislation, the public is invited to have a say on some of the rules.
“While we all accept that housing supply and quality are major challenges for our city and that we need to provide more housing for our growing population, we recognise that the government’s directive to give effect to intensification is a blunt tool, and submitted on this at the time,” she said.
Hutt City Council opposed the legislation and instead requested that the rules be applied only to councils that had not substantively progressed intensification plans in their cities to meet projected housing needs.
“We’ve worked to include earlier feedback from the public and Mana Whenua into the proposed changes and I encourage residents to get involved and have their say by 20 September,” Alison Geddes said.
A letter outlining the proposed changes and how to have your say will be arriving in urban residential and business letterboxes over the coming week.
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
This is how you fix a housing crisis. I look forward to watching the beautiful Hutt Valley grow up and develop into a more people friendly city, where it’s easy to live without a car and where people can afford to put down their roots and form community.
This is also how you make a town unpleasant to live in. According to the GIS maps, pretty much the whole valley floor will become liable for 6-storey development. Not sure how realistic that is given the substrate you’re building on (my house is on 3.5m of sand, for example). Very few carve outs for heritage – mainly in Petone.
Realistically, 3-6 storey places aren’t going to spring up overnight, but I suspect they’ll end up scattered around the City, disconnected and without appropriate infrastructure. I certainly don’t see any new open spaces for the increased population density and the services to go with it.
Given that most people on the valley floor don’t use public transport, it’s hard to see how this enables people to live without a car. I was expecting to see the intensification zones around the railway stations, but a lot of the high density area seems to be further from public transport than most people would care to walk. So, I don’t see how Peter’s comment above holds – I don’t think this makes it easier for people to live without a car, and it certainly won’t make the Hutt Valley beautiful.
Andy, more population density will make it viable for more businesses and services to operate in a neighborhood so the in the future, average person won’t have to travel as far to get groceries, their kids will be able to walk or bike to school, public transport can run more frequently and therefor be a realistic option, the list goes on.. Yes, some people might be affected when they have a large building go up next to them. But I believe the benefits to the wider community massively outweigh the short-term effects to individuals who might feel affected by property development near them. This rezoning will almost certainly boost land values on the valley floor so if they are suddenly shocked by the fact that they now live in a real city they could use those gains to relocate somewhere else.
One thing I am concerned about is the lack of mixed-use zoning in the plan, but hopefully it will become evident that we could have a more vibrant city if we allow the ground floor of apartment buildings to be used as a commercial space as you see in virtually every other city in the world.
Green space is also something that also seems to be missing like you mention Andy, but in a lot of parts of the world (noticed it a lot when I was in Spain) there is a trend of low-traffic neighborhoods and turning some streets into public park-like spaces. I could certainly envision more of this in New Zealand as density increases (and car as dependency decreases) in our cities.
Andy Mellon may want to visit this council GIS link as it doesn’t show that which he is complaining about.
There is no provision in these plans for adding the businesses and services you’re referring to. In isolation, this plan is only for residential intensification, not solving the issues you’re referring to. No space for extra civic amenities, no space for the expansion of schools that will be required. Just where are these expanded services going to be?
I’m unapologetic about my scepticism, as New Zealand has a poor track record of investing in the infrastructure required to support development. I have no doubt that amenity will decrease in (at least) the short term and, in the absence of any clear plan, I also suspect that congestion and car use will increase.
Just one example of my experience. I have been asking the Council since 2017 for a safe pedestrian crossing in Te Puni Street, Petone. I once waited over 10 minutes to safely cross that road with a baby + buggy. The last reply was that there will be “consideration” of Te Puni Street in a micro mobility programme expected in late 2022/early 2023. Similarly, I have made requests for drop kerbs to be put in at a couple of roads where there currently isn’t one, in order to make life easier for those with buggies, wheelchairs etc. No progress. If these minor things can’t be achieved in 5 years, what hope is there of an integrated public transport and pedestrian improvement plan that is absolutely essential if there is an intention of allying intensification with reduced vehicle movements.
Intensification might be a good thing, but it won’t be if it’s done on the smell of an oily rag and with the “she’ll be right” attitude that seems to be synonymous with infrastructure investment.
Mike. I looked at the GIS Maps and unless they’re not working for me, it shows pretty much everything on the valley floor as the brown High Density Residential. Apart from the CBD, Hutt Hospital, existing parks and industrial zones. It’s only when you get towards the lower slopes of the hills that the High turns to Medium.
Andy, my apology. Looks like you’re right and not me. I’m don’t think I had clicked enough boxes. To your comment “I’m unapologetic about my scepticism, as New Zealand has a poor track record of investing in the infrastructure required to support development “ one can only agree.
All good Mike. I wasn’t sure how to use ArcGIS and hoped the error was at my end!
I live in Riverside Gardens and my property which my wife and I own backs on to the proposed Housing New Zealand development. The existing single storey houses will be demolished to make way for 3 storey dwellings possibly 6 one metre from the fence overlooking our property, shutting off the light and sun. I have no problem with the proposed housing – everyone has the right to live somewhere – but my argument is that had we been told 7 years ago that this was a given we possibly would not have bought here. We are both retired, worked for 50 years paid taxes and rates to purchase this house without hand outs from anyone. My personal views may piss some people off who still believe that the government should look after one from the cradle to thd grave.