Apartments won't create affordable homes-Developer

Permitted building heights are set to change in Tauranga under new planning rules. Photo: Supplied.

A Tauranga developer is concerned that proposed planning rules to increase building heights in Mount Maunganui won’t create affordable homes.

Tauranga City Council is proposing to raise the allowable building heights in Mount Maunganui North as part of Plan Change 33.

Heights of six storeys were proposed in the shopping area and within 400 metres of it, then four storeys between 400-800m of the shops.

A decision on the plan change will be made at Monday’s council meeting.

The plan change is in response to the Government’s medium-density residential standards (MDRS) that allows for greater intensification in urban areas.

Classic Group director Peter Cooney says the primary role of the MDRS was to create more availability for housing and more affordability.

“You will not create affordability, especially in Mount North, just because the cost of the land so expensive and to go vertical is extremely expensive.”

The proposed heights would create holiday homes or properties for people that could afford homes that cost over $1m.

Classic Group director Peter Cooney said building apartments would not create affordable housing. Photo: George Novak / Bay of Plenty Times.

He says construction costs in New Zealand were “out of kilter” with the rest of the word so building vertically was challenging.

"As soon as you go above three levels, the construction changes and it's horrendously expensive."

A lot of developers wouldn't take that risk especially in the current economic climate, he says.

"You'll see very little apartment building going on in the Bay of Plenty for the next five to seven years."

An independent hearing panel released its recommendations on the plan change recently after hearings were held in July and October 2023.

For Mount Maunganui north it recommended keeping the building height restrictions as they were currently.

But the MDRS would still apply to some areas of the suburb that enabled buildings up to three storeys without needing resource consent.

This was in response to submitters concerns around traffic congestion, air pollution and a lack of infrastructure.

An independent hearing panel has recommended keeping building heights the same around the Mount Maunganui shops. Photo: SunLive.

Also, that greater building heights and intensification would impact the “unique character” of the area.

“Increasing the permitted height within the area [Mount Maunganui North] will not maintain the existing character and amenity of the area,” the panel’s decision said.

Cooney says the panel’s recommendation was “common sense”.

Having lived in the Mount all his life Cooney says his views weren’t about “NIMBYism” (not in my back yard).

As a developer he was all for intensification, but you had to pick a location that suited, he says.

Solutions were needed for infrastructure, congestion, and air pollution from nearby industry before planning rules were applied “carte blanche,” says Cooney.

“You must put the horse before the cart, in this case, they've got the cart before the horse. You must resolve those issues and have a game plan to solve those issues.

"It is all about urban good urban outcomes."

Mount Matters Residents Group spokesperson Barry Brown. Photo: Alisha Evans/SunLive.

Barry Brown, of the Mount Matters Residents Group, agreed the panel’s recommendations were common sense.

“Common sense and good planning have prevailed with the Panel recommending that heights in Mount North should remain as originally notified,” he said in a statement.

When Plan Change 33 was notified in August 2022 the council originally proposed to keep the Mount Maunganui building heights the same but apply the MDRS. This changed in August 2023 after some submissions requested greater heights.

In response to Cooney’s concerns, a council spokesperson said they wouldn’t be commenting ahead of Monday’s meeting.

Permitted buildings heights are set to change across the city under the plan change.

Building heights between four and six storeys would be enabled in areas within five to 10 minutes’ walk of some of the city’s commercial centres including Bayfair in Mount Maunganui and Pāpāmoa Plaza.

Building heights of eight storeys would be allowed along Cameron Road in the Te Papa peninsula.

In the city centre, buildings up to 13 storeys could be built and eight storey buildings would be permitted within 1500m of the CBD.

Six of the panel’s recommendations do not align with council’s recommendations under the plan change.

The commission will decide whether to accept the panel’s recommendations on Monday May 20.

If the recommendations are not accepted, they will be referred to the housing minister for a decision, which cannot be appealed.

LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.

5 comments

1000% correct.

Posted on 17-05-2024 18:56 | By Bruja

Peter is absolutely correct in his opinions. It is NOT the 'location' for any more high-rise. That Structure Properties and Shannon Moyle need to take their 'greed' elsewhere!!! How much money does one family need? Destruction of the Mount is what any such plans would bring. Almost criminal when you consider that Hinau Street and Pitau Road PENSIONER villages were 'gifted' to TCC AGAINST the wishes of the Mount Borough Council. Build PENSIONER flats!!!! :(


Spot on

Posted on 17-05-2024 19:59 | By Naysay

Balanced viewpoint. The Mount sits in a small congested peninsula of which has never been designed for long term residential growth. Coupled with industrial pollution both road, air and water it's a reckless approach by our City Council to even consider this. Stimulate an other area that needs it. And has the infrastructure to support future growth in a concept that also considers environmental factors.


Hmmm

Posted on 17-05-2024 21:10 | By Let's get real

How can we possibly think that this is nothing but another example of council using their services to allow developers to make money.
It disgusts me to think about what might be happening in our council offices.
Are we seeing council officers opening up development opportunities during friendly business meetings with developers or are there financial benefits for council from high end properties around one of the most sought-after locations in the country...?
I am finding it harder and harder to believe that NZ will be able to continue to be regarded as one of the least corrupt nations in the world for too much longer.
Right around the nation there are decisions that have been made, that financially benefit certain groups and it seems to go along quite happily without so much as a question from taxpayers or ratepayers.


Walkable cities

Posted on 19-05-2024 09:45 | By peter_steven



I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – we need more housing to increase overall market affordability, and it should be possible to build it in places where it makes logical sense.

That developer in the story that Vernita linked to is probably quite happy continuing to make $$$ off greenfield development in an uncompetitive environment. People get stuck in their ways, even property developers.

I don’t know how you can look at Mount Maunganui and not imagine it growing up to be a beautiful walkable city close to nature and the beach. No, stuff that, let’s build more crappy suburbs, malls, and motorways. Luckily I feel like town planning in NZ is moving in a positive direction, even with these types trying to dominate the conversation.


Of Course

Posted on 19-05-2024 18:18 | By Inmediasres

Of course Peter Cooney is going to say that. Forcing developers to intensify turns off the tap of endless cheap land that they've sprawled out in for decades. And made ridiculous profits from in the process.

And yes, obviously Mount North isn't going to be affordable housing. But it ties up the upper end of the market so they don't gobble up the sprawl land at Tauriko West and Te Temu when it finally comes online.

Developers like him only care about their profit margin, not struggling families that need affordable housing.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.