Fears for sun, privacy, birdlife

Public feedback on Christchurch’s planned building density rules reveals residents fear losing sunshine and privacy, and the city’s trees, birdlife, and affordable housing.

From September, the city council will enact changes as required by Government, allowing three residential buildings, each up to 12 metres or three storeys high, to go up in most parts of the city without resource consent.

The changes aim to boost the supply of affordable housing, and prevent urban sprawl, by increasing the amount of medium-density housing. They must be introduced in the main cities in the next few weeks.

More than 700 individuals and groups made submissions on Christchurch’s planned changes. In line with the new law, the council has chosen some pockets to exempt from the rule changes because of heritage value, infrastructure limitations or coastal hazards.

Many submitters, including some in favour of boosting housing intensity, expressed worries about multi-storey buildings dwarfing and overshadowing single-storey homes.

Some said the recession plane rules, intended to protect neighbours’ sun, would have very different outcomes in the North Island than in Christchurch, where lower winter sun would mean much more shading.

Some said the loss of warmth and light would boost power bills, especially in older homes. It would make it harder to grow vegetables, and would affect solar heating systems, they said. ‘‘Lack of sun and light is detrimental to people’s health and wellbeing,’’ one said.

Another person said they had already seen the effects of tall flats going up in Hornby. ‘‘We are supposed to be having nice warm houses, and these completely block any natural sunlight to the single house next door. Give some thought to the people . . . who get this slammed next to them.’’

Some submitters in support of higher density wanted the intensification limited to defined areas with a consistent height, to avoid too much impact on surroundings. One was ‘‘concerned there is no mechanism to prevent random tall buildings appearing in an otherwise low-height area’’.

Some groups commented on the social impacts of the changes, especially in poorer areas.

The Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board said high-intensity housing in lower socioeconomic areas could increase antisocial behaviour and members were ‘‘continually’’ hearing of such problems from Phillipstown residents. ‘‘The board notes that while economic and environmental impacts have been considered, they do not feel the social and wellbeing consequences have been considered as thoroughly.’’

Te Whare Roimata Trust and the Latimer Community Housing Trust, both of which work in the eastern inner city, described the ‘‘paradox’’ of denser development boosting the housing supply but at the cost of ‘‘single person housing for people on limited incomes’’.

‘‘Without an analysis of the social consequences of intensification, the ICE [inner city east] experience demonstrates how the plight of the poor, single dweller is overlooked in the rush to create an intensified, compact city,’’ their submission said.

The risk of losing tree cover and birdlife was stressed by many, with the potential effects of nearby intensive development on Riccarton

Bush singled out. One submitter accused developers ‘‘with no vested interest’’ in neighbourhoods of stripping away trees, erecting as many units as possible, and ‘‘smothering what remaining land is left’’ with cement and asphalt.

Others were worried about loss of value for existing homes if people wanted to sell because of a development next door; the lack of on-street parking; and increased water run-off and flooding.

Some submitters said property developers targeting cheaper suburbs were already demolishing houses ideal for new buyers.

Other proposed rule changes allowing even higher development density will take effect from next year. They will include allowing sixstorey (20m) buildings near some shopping areas and bus routes, and buildings 32m high surrounding the central city. Central city height limits will be removed.

In response to suggested zones for 20m height limits near shopping and transport hubs, some people said they were not wide enough and should allow for a 10-minute walk to amenities, rather than five.

Many of the submitters supported the proposed mixed commercial and residential zones. The resulting shops and hospitality outlets with housing above would add vitality to the city, they said. Christchurch was described as different to other cities because of the amount of vacant land.

Some urged a staged approach to intensifying housing, developing on bare land in the inner city first. They suggested that allowing too much suburban development would stymie central city growth while the earthquake rebuild was still under way. One said removing the central city building height limit would make ‘‘for a more lively city and a safer city with more population’’.

The council recently delayed notifying the required district plan changes from August to September because of staff illness. One month of formal consultation will immediately follow. While the new rules for medium density housing development take effect from the date they are notified, the district plan itself does not become fully operative until August 2023, allowing time for any legal challenges or court appeals to be dealt with.

‘‘We are supposed to be having nice warm houses, and these completely block any natural sunlight to the single house next door.’’

A resident on the effects of tall flats going up in Hornby