There is concern Auckland will lose what many would consider part of its soul. Heritage advocates say they are fearful the Government’s resource management reforms will lead to the further loss of the city’s kauri villas and bungalows.

Character Coalition chair Sally Hughes says she is convinced that Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop wants to abolish “Special Character Areas” (SCA) in favour of high-density housing.

“If SCAs survive at all, they will be significantly reduced,” she said.

Auckland’s villas are part of its identity, much like the terraced houses in Melbourne and Sydney, the iconic Queenslander in Brisbane, or the California bungalow.

These character-filled suburbs of Auckland are something many comment on when visiting the City of Sails.

Nobody would disagree with Bishop that we need more housing – and we certainly need more affordable housing in Auckland.

Building along planned transport corridors, particularly with the City Rail Link (CRL) near opening, makes absolute sense.

Bishop has highlighted single-storey villas in Kingsland hindering high-density development once the CRL opens.

He said work is under way on addressing heritage and SCAs in the new Planning Act but expects councils to give greater consideration to the impact that character areas and heritage areas will have on private property rights.

But we should be careful to ensure architecture is not treated as insignificant when pursuing the goal of greater housing.

It is vital to a city’s fabric. It makes our homes, places of work and environments more than just practical shelter.

The best architecture influences how we live our lives, it can inspire people and define a society.

Heritage expert Allan Matson believed Bishop’s reforms are another step toward the death knell of heritage and argued it will be easier to delist properties with heritage protection.

The Coalition for More Homes disagrees, and in its view thinks Auckland Council has used SCAs too broadly.

Directives by the last Government to change the rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan to increase housing density led to a review of the SCAs, impacting nearly one in four of 21,000 homes.

The most impact was in St Marys Bay, Birkenhead, Epsom, Remuera, Parnell and Mt Albert.

“Auckland’s special character areas encompass a rare gem in global urbanism ... protected timber architecture from the 19th and 20th centuries unrivalled worldwide in scale and quality,” Hughes said.

We must find a balance to continue to develop our city but also protect what makes it special. Both are important.

Heritage advocates fear the government's resource management reforms will lead to further losses of kauri villas and bungalows which they say are part of Auckland’s identity.

Character Coalition chair Sally Hughes is convinced that Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop wants to abolish “Special Character Areas” (SCA) of villas and bungalows for high-density housing.

Heritage expert Allan Matson said Bishop’s reforms are another step toward the death knell of heritage, saying they will make it easier to delist properties with heritage protection.

The Coalition for More Homes disagrees, saying Auckland Council has used SCAs too broadly without regard for the cost of housing or genuine architectural quality.

SCAs are a planning tool developed by Auckland Council to protect areas of villas and bungalows with heritage values. Heritage areas and heritage properties are legally protected in conjunction with Heritage New Zealand and councils.

Last month, Bishop announced an overhaul of the Resource Management Act with two new acts – the Planning Act and a Natural Environment Act. The part of the reforms focused on increasing housing density, particularly along transport corridors in Auckland and other big cities, has strong backing from lobby groups like the Coalition for More Homes.In a statement to the Herald, Bishop announced that work is under way on addressing heritage and SCAs in the new Planning Act but expects councils to give greater consideration to the impact that character areas and heritage areas will have on private property rights. “The proposed Planning Act will focus on planning and regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land, which will include how councils and central government manage heritage protection and character,” the minister said. “ These reforms will mean positive change for communities, including enabling more housing, businesses and infrastructure, and will cut through some of the pointless red tape currently included in our planning system. ”In an article in the Post, Bishop raised the possibility of compensating homeowners for regulations that limit their ability to develop homes in SCA and heritage areas. He has highlighted single-storey villas in Kingsland hindering high-density development once the City Rail Link (CRL) opens, and criticised the commissioners’ rejection of plans for an 11-storey office building near the CRL on Karangahape Rd.

Hughes said Auckland’s SCAs have been whittled away over time and predicted the next step will be the minister saying “no” to SCAs around transport corridors, including main roads. “If SCAs survive at all, they will be significantly reduced,” she said.

Directives by the last Government to change the rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan to increase housing density led to a review of the SCAs impacting nearly one in four of 21,000 homes. The most impact was in St Marys Bay, Birkenhead, Epsom, Remuera, Parnell and Mt Albert.

“Character counts,” said Hughes, referring to a survey into special character commissioned by the Founders Society that concluded: “Auckland’s special character areas encompass a rare gem in global urbanism ... protected timber architecture from the 19th and 20th centuries unrivalled worldwide in scale and quality.

”Hughes said the Character Coalition, comprising about 60 heritage and community groups, doesn’t have a problem with aspects of the RMA reforms to streamline planning rules. But it takes issue with the idea to remove all things heritage from the new legislation, she said. The Character Coalition is concerned with the suggestion in a report by the Ministerial Advisory Group on RMA reform to remove historic heritage from the Planning Act and hand it solely to Heritage New Zealand.“Heritage matters have become confused with special character protection under the RMA, and this has created significant barriers to enabling urban development,” the Ministerial Advisory Group report said.

Matson said the RMA reforms prioritise private property rights to remove impediments to development, but that comes at a cost to things of collective values, like built heritage. The reforms, he said, include a seemingly innocuous but concerning change to the process by which heritage buildings could be removed from council heritage schedules and protections afforded to them. “Removing heritage protection currently involves a council report, submissions, a hearing, and potentially an appeal, which are all public. The new process proposed would see removal managed instead through a ‘Streamlined Planning Process’ instigated by either the council or the minister with no submissions, no hearings and no appeals,” Matson said.

The Chief Ombudsman has submitted the process will not be open to public oversight, and Heritage NZ said there is little evidence of any problem with the current process, Matson said. “Among the five ministries consulted on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other Systems Changes) Amendment Bill, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage did not support this part of the legislation. “If this part of the legislation progresses as drafted, an opaque process will soon open the door to potentially widespread destruction of New Zealand’s built heritage,” he said.

Coalition for More Homes spokesman Scott Caldwell said the group is a vocal supporter of genuine heritage protection but has seen oddities recently, such as protections getting in the way of installing disability ramps at train stations and retrofitting double glazing in old homes. He said the new legislation makes it easier for councils to list and delist heritage buildings and suggests moving heritage functions out of the resource management system and into the Heritage Act. “We support both of these moves. What we do not support is large, blanket areas designated as “special character” with no regard for the cost and little regard to the quality of the built form.

“A recent Cabinet paper estimated there are 20,000 homes within central Auckland suburbs which are commercially feasible and infrastructure-ready but prohibited by special character and volcanic viewshafts. “Instead of well-designed apartments near existing rapid transit, we see townhouse and single-family development clogging the motorways in areas like Te Atatū and Drury. This way, special character controls are increasing both the direct and indirect costs of housing,” Caldwell said.

At the coalface, Auckland Council planning director Megan Tyler said the council has not received any formal direction on how heritage matters will be reflected in the new legislation, so it’s too early to know the impact. “Inevitably, changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan will be required in the future to meet expected housing capacity requirements.“This is likely to include consideration of special character areas, especially in areas close to mass transit, where the need for housing is greatest” she said.

PROPERTY

Auckland’s Plan Change 78: In defence of the villa amid urban intensification push

Maria Slade | Tue, 22 Apr 2025

Ponsonby is a perfect example of villas as far as the eye can see. (Image: Alex Burton)

Unless you are a planning nerd or need a cure for insomnia, the long-running saga of Auckland’s Plan Change 78 will have escaped your notice.

Yet this arcane urban intensification instrument has far-reaching implications for our biggest city's future shape and liveability.

PC78 is Auckland Council’s (AC) response to central government demands that local authorities free up extra capacity for residential and commercial development in their areas.

However, since AC notified the plan change in 2022, seven worlds of natural disasters and political flip-flopping have collided to turn the pathway for its implementation into a bog, almost literally.

The devastation caused by the Anniversary Weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle in early 2023 resulted in Auckland begging Wellington for a time extension, as AC planners scrambled to reassess which areas of the city were still suitable for intensification.

Meanwhile, the AC had carved a gumboot-shaped swathe out of the central isthmus from Newton to the airport, where it refused to implement the mandatory upzoning.

This represented the corridor for the previous Government’s $15 billion light rail project.

In effect, AC said: “There’s no point in us doing this if you’re only going to turn around and declare your preferred light rail route and make us do it all over again.”

Upzoning whiplash

After three years, a general election, and the axing of light rail, AC again had to ask for more time.

As well as giving effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), PC78 was supposed to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), a directive allowing three dwellings of three storeys on most urban sites without a resource consent.

However, while the MDRS was passed in a bipartisan deal between the major parties in December 2021, the new National-led Government soon forgot that kumbaya moment and declared the MDRS would be optional.

Auckland’s unrivalled villas

Some people see a draughty old villa taking up valuable central city space, while others see precious historic character.

Joshua Howie, a postgraduate student in architecture and heritage conservation at Auckland University, did a study comparing the city’s villas with Brisbane’s “Queenslanders”, workers' cottages in Melbourne and Chicago, the “shotgun” houses of New Orleans, and the wooden cottages of Nantucket.

He found that Auckland’s Victorian and Edwardian residential architecture is characterised by a cohesive “vibe” and has no direct equivalent elsewhere in the world.

“Ponsonby is a perfect example of this; villas as far as the eye can see.

“Auckland is unrivalled in the scale and consistency of its areas of ornate timber colonial architecture.

“This architecture and its streetscapes are in and of themselves endemic to Auckland, and entirely unique globally, making Auckland’s special character areas a taonga,” he concluded.

Sites too small

Whether you agree with Howie or not, there is another important factor to consider in the heritage protection versus housing intensification debate.

Auckland’s character homes tend to sit on small and extremely valuable sites.

If a developer pays $3 million for an inner-city villa, they will not replace it with a clutch of $700,000 affordable homes. They will seek to maximise their outlay by building two or three luxury townhouses or apartments.

In Ponsonby, some sites are so bijoux that you’d be struggling to build townhouses, Chris Farhi, head of insights and data at real estate agency Bayleys, said.

He said that in other areas where the sections are larger, the economics are different, and there could be an argument for removing character protections.

Heritage is desirable, evidenced by the ongoing popularity of suburbs with a critical mass of turn-of-the-century houses and builders offering replica character homes. There is also demand for more quality homes, Farhi said.

“If you look at overall housing supply, we’re not necessarily needing to focus all the new developments at the affordable end of the spectrum.”

Leave Auckland alone

Cheung has told his constituents that the Government will not stop the AC from retaining special character provisions in its Unitary Plan.

It will demand that any loss of development capacity caused by the use of unlisted qualifying matters be offset by an increase in development capacity elsewhere.

“This change will allow councils to limit intensification in areas judged by local communities to be unsuited for further development, whilst preventing a net loss in housing,” he said.

The Character Coalition, an umbrella group representing 60 residents and heritage groups, is somewhat encouraged that it may not be necessary to sell the family silver after all.

It stated that Auckland is quite capable of balancing the unquestioned need for greater intensification, especially around train stations, once the new City Rail Link is up and running, with the retention of our remaining pockets of character housing.

Tamaki Makaurau should be left alone to determine where it is best to intensify, and where it is desirable to preserve its storied heritage and characterful cityscape.

Photo: Sylvie Whinray, N Z Herald.