Written By:
- Date published:
4:26 pm, September 2nd, 2025 - 11 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, chris bishop, infrastructure, local government, national, same old national -
Tags:
Last Friday on Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon Auckland councilor Christine Fletcher (a former National Party minister so hardly a raving lefty) called the latest densification plan for Auckland “planning by firing squad”. The plan is consistent with a government mandated Auckland planning option backed by RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop. It will result, among other things, in 15-storey apartment blocks being permitted as of right in as yet only vaguely indicated locations near transport hubs. There was a feisty discussion on the plan on Nine to Noon between Fletcher and fellow councilor Richard Hills.
Last night there was a well attended meeting in Mount Eden complaining about Bishop’s planning rules for Auckland. The loss of Special Character zoning for many houses and the 15-storey towers were significant issues.
Hills attacked Fletcher’s use of the description “planning by firing squad” [PBFS] but in fact this is a wonderfully gritty and totally apt description of the way the coalition government is approaching planning throughout NZ.
The PBFS approach is characterised by being very rushed, lacking in detail, an almost total lack of public consultation, non-existent local knowledge and consistently paying little heed to environmental effects. It is a classic Wellington Ivory Tower approach.
The fast track regime, much loved by Bishop, has all of these characteristics. It is designed to slam through developments by ignoring district plan rules. The process is specifically designed to avoid these rules; it is fundamentally undemocratic.
One outcome of the PBFS process is that around 5000 additional residential houses will be consented in and around Queenstown (probably more-it is hard to keep track). The traffic in Queenstown is already atrocious yet still they slam through more fast tracked subdivisions.
Then there is the massive fast-tracked Santana gold mine near Tarras in Otago. Any coalition with Shane Jones as a minister will wave this through. Yet it represents the rape and pillage of Central Otago’s landscapes. An entire hill will have its summit removed in full view of people living nearby or travelling along the state highway.
Then there is Seymour’s infamous Regulatory Standards Bill; this has huge planning implications. A central tenet is that property rights have primacy. The implications are dire. For instance it will permit idiots to gain consent to build monstrosities on their piece of rural land as of right. There will be no ability to submit in opposition; this will be prescribed by Seymour’s legislation. Neighbours owning property adjacent to the monstrosity site will look on in horror and wonder why they had no right to object; Seymour’s bill had taken this right from them.
Then there is the Small Stand-Alone Dwellings Amendment Bill (popularly but wrongly known as the “granny-flat” legislation ) where 80m2 houses will be permitted to be built on any property as of right anywhere in the landscape including all over outstanding natural landscape. Adverse effects such as visual effects, access roads, lighting etc etc will not be assessed.
All of the above represents “planning by firing squad” where dissenting voices are shot down.
The Queenstown Lakes Proposed District Plan (I live near Wanaka) has been developed over twelve years, and has taken into account thousands of submissions from the public. It has cost many millions of dollars. Bishop’s proposed replacement for the RMA will make this plan redundant. This is madness.
Bishop has already dumped some elements of the RMA in the recent Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Bill approved earlier this month. But, and this is crucial, Bishop says that the RMA’s replacement (that is still being written) will become law in 2026, but it will not come into effect until 2027. This means that if the Left wins in 2026 it can repeal Bishop’s planning legislation. It would then, presumably, continue with the existing RMA until it can replace this with David Parker’s replacement for the RMA almost finished in 2023.
The planning anarchy described above offers a massive opportunity for the Left. It is not popular with many people-look at last night’s Mount Eden meeting. People in Tarras are less than impressed with the Santana mine planning process, and so on.
The Greens have already made it plain that they hate the PBFS approach; in particular they are horrified by the adverse effects on the environment. But Labour is, by and large, sitting on the fence.
Labour must take a clear stand now. It must say now what it would do to stop the planning mayhem being visited on NZ. This should include:
Bearded Git
Not a lot to argue with there BG, I concur. There might be an issue to be had around Labour's strategy. I see the tension between impacts on communities in the short term and the broader argument on timing of policy release.
I am coming down on the side of remain quiet and let attention remain on this fustercluck of a government. Luxon's latest efforts around the Amazon/Labour initiative being a good example. Particularly how he does anything to avoid using the word Labour. Kinda like the Wallabies never using All Blacks, it's always New Zealand. However post election, if there is a change, go hard, heed the lessons of this government.
BTW, congratulations on authoring a post, look forward to the next one.
Cheers gsays….there may indeed be method in Hipkins tactics …we are lucky here in Godzone that if his approach is seen to be too conservative we can vote Green and it still counts.
Good place to be gsays. I'm doing the same although there are flare-ups from time to time – the latest being the attempt to seize former Labour/Green initiatives and claim them as their own. A clear sign they are flailing about with no idea what they are doing.
Btw, Isn't it clusterfuck. 🙂
Good post BG.
In Tamaki Makaurau the Unitary Plan was consulted on to death, had multiple multiple hearings and meetings, came up with a model of intensification which was not bad although to be frank I would prefer to have intensified the hell out of inner city train stations, and has generally driven intensification.
The variations after that have been somewhat performative, more housing (good) but increasing levels of complication.
Out west the changes are not huge. We were already on the road to compact city status thanks to the Waitakere City Council's eco city model and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act which put up a hard boundary to stop urban sprawl.
Subsequent variations have been more peformative than direction setting.
Your description of PBFS is very apt. This is performative politics to give the impression of activity and doing something and material for the next press release.
The fragmented nature of land ownership, both urban and rural mean that change will not happen quickly.
And yep Labour needs to make a stand. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area gives them the perfect opportunity.
Cheers micky…and yes the Waitakere Ranges is a good example of an area worth making a stand on.
The landscapes down here in the deep south are similarly worth fighting for.
Bishop's agenda is dangerous. He has no scruples.
I don’t support Bishop’s ham-fisted bypassing of local knowledge, environmental impacts, and public consultation. It's a terrible way to make long-term decisions for New Zealand’s cities and towns.
But let’s be honest: across the country, our planning frameworks have delivered perverse outcomes. We’ve made it hardest to build where it makes the most sense: near rapid transit, jobs, and services. And instead pushed growth to the fringes. The result is more unsustainable sprawl, higher infrastructure costs, longer commutes, and worsening emissions. That’s bad planning and bad economics.
Good planning means building up where people want to live and where transport and infrastructure already exist. It means aligning housing, transport, and environmental sustainability and not treating them as competing priorities.
In the Auckland context this means around transport stations, especially in the inner west now the CRL is nearing completion.
Even the noted fascists at Greater Auckland were cautiously supportive.
Yes, communities should have a voice. But the housing needs of millions of New Zealanders can’t be held hostage to a handful of wealthy, well-lawyered NIMBYs determined to freeze "their" suburbs in amber.
New Zealand needs a smarter, evidence-based approach that delivers affordability and liveability, not planning by political decree.
I've got no problem with most of that Res. In particular densification of urban areas represents sustainable management-urban sprawl doesn't.
One of the problems we have down here in Otago is that developments such as, for example, the massive Peter Thiel complex, sited in precious lakeside outstanding natural landscape and easily visible, would be waved through under the planning regime proposed by Bishop.
The much maligned (but usually very functional and effective) RMA on the other hand permitted public input and detailed analysis of adverse effects and resulted in consent for the Thiel complex being declined at both the Council hearing and in the Environment Court.
I wouldn't dare compare Auckland to Queenstown.
Nor be so bold as to criticise a warrior for the environment and against untrammelled development as the post author is.
But Christine Fletcher can bite my ass.
She had zero support for light rail. She has a track record of defending her white-picketed multi-million value neighbourhoods from any kind of development. And has done so for more than a decade.
I don't really need to explain her disastrous Mayoral campaign with John Tamihere just 6 years ago.
Christine Fletcher has been over the last three terms the shining example of councillors that will do everything to stand in the way of housing development. The traffic mess and squalor of Dominion Road is hers to answer for together with many councillors who have sided with her.
That makes her just the kind of councillor that Ministers need to simply crush in order to get higher density housing up around rail lines. and city arterial roads.
Aye BG…Author : ) Many more to come….
Oh this is not quite in the firing squad line up,per se, (altho the conspiracy nutbars might think differently !), but I have posted before about Enviro/Sustainable alternatives…
incl 15/20 Minute Cities…and for those rainy types Sponge Cities (which dont just have a sponge effect..they attract Birds, Animals,Fish etc;..) What think? (I hope you wont send me to Open Mike..or a blindfold : )
A rather cool one I found when searching up Alternative Building. In the Article there were so many people, of varied backgrounds, that had input. Really an Upbeat story : )
Some fantastic ideas there Psyc…I'm sure Chris Bishop will be right onto them (sarc).