Urban intensification is the second hot topic facing the Upper Clutha which the Wānaka App has asked local body election candidates’ their views about.

A Wānaka session of hearings on the Urban Intensification Variation (UIV) has been underway this week.

The UIV is an outcome of the previous government’s 2020 national policy statement on urban development (NPS-UD), which directs councils around the country to remove some planning rules and plan for growth.

Under the proposal, the regulations for Lower Density Suburban Residential (LDSR) zones would change to allow for building height up to 8m in most cases, and in Medium Density Residential (MDR) zones heights of 11m (+ 1m for pitched roofs).

It would also allow for heights in the Wānaka CBD of 16.5m (up from 12m).

Find detailed information on the proposed UIV and how it would work here.

Wānaka Upper Clutha Community Board candidates respond

Simon Telfer: “If Wānaka continues to grow at its current rate we can't afford sprawl - we've seen what happens with traffic congestion in Queenstown. The cost of providing associated housing infrastructure and services is already a burden on ratepayers and will only increase with sprawl. So I support increased residential density in Three Parks and in the town's CBD.

People make for a sustainable town centre, so giving residents the choice to live, work and play close together can bring energy, vibrancy and a smile to retailers. Public transport hubs and good walking and biking connections close to these areas provide many additional benefits to the whole community too.”

Chris Hadfield: “This is basically a government directive to supposedly ensure well functioning urban environments. However in Wānaka there is a general reluctance to increase the intensity of buildings as well as the increase in the allowable height. Given the geography of the town and the relatively flat central area and the outlook residents have there is little acceptance of the plan.

Should this go ahead I believe there needs to be very careful and thorough consideration given to every street that is to be considered. To date the implementation has been too broad and too little consideration given to the effects on the livability of each area.” 

John Wellington: “In principle I support the UIV proposal as we need to develop upwards rather than outwards as a general theme to have more efficient service delivery - water, sewerage, fibre etc and make public transport a more practical option. I do have concerns regarding for the area south of Brownston St, as a key reason for intensification is the ability to provide affordable apartments, and given the views etc, I don’t see that being delivered there.

I am much more supportive in green fields sites like the soon to be developed residential part of Three Parks.”

Kathy Dedo: “The 2017 LINK Upper Clutha ‘3 Questions’ survey revealed what residents value about this place and how it could be even better. Managing growth, better infrastructure, and affordability were top improvement themes. Still key issues, these highlight the tension between a desire to maintain Wānaka’s unique character and the need to do things differently to enable people to affordably live and work here.

The Urban Intensification Variation (UIV) to the Proposed District Plan – part of central government’s direction to councils to loosen building restrictions and allow more and taller buildings in some areas – also tests that balance. A one-size-fits-all directive primarily aimed at urban centres doesn’t take into account our smaller town’s special character. Submissions on the UIV are mostly opposed, with concerns about increased height affecting overall village character, sun, and views across the CBD and in the proposed residential areas.

Many have suggested increased density elsewhere (eg Three Parks and other greenfields locations). Intensification in highly capitalised areas is unlikely to lead to more affordable housing as this land is already very expensive. The intent of the UIV may make sense in theory, but its application as currently proposed for Wānaka doesn’t. I think any plan variation should be considered in the context of the Spatial Plan and a refreshed Wānaka Town Centre Masterplan that integrates transport and parking solutions. Intensification might be a piece of the growth puzzle, but should not be the first one put into place.”

John Bache: “I understand the Urban Intensification Variation proposes managed densification through increased building heights in specific Wānaka zones - eight metres in Lower Density Residential areas, 11 metres in Medium Density zones, and 16.5 metres in the CBD.

This aims to accommodate growth 'up' rather than through continued outward sprawl. I support urban intensification in principle as a more sustainable approach to growth than sprawl. However, implementation must carefully balance enabling appropriate levels of housing density with preserving Wānaka's character and community needs.

When it comes to the CBD, I would prefer to limit such dramatic height increases to the Three Parks area/ new developments, rather than implementing them in the existing downtown centre which has such a special and unique character.”

Linda Joll did not respond.

Council candidates respond

As Lyal Cocks is one of the hearing commissioners for the UIV, he has declined to comment. 

Quentin Smith: “The UIV plan change is currently going through [a] hearing process and could result in increased height limits and higher densities in many parts of Wānaka. It is a government directed change through the NPS (National policy statement) for Urban development. One of the many top down legal and policy directions that are imposed on councils.

It is a tricky issue, the NPS tries to apply metropolitan solutions to places like Wānaka which is a poor fit, particularly relating to transport. I support intensification and increased heights in the right places that can be efficiently serviced with transport (like public transport) and cost efficient infrastructure. I support a strategic approach to planning that has the right land use in the right places and responds to local circumstances.

Things like the Spatial Plan should play a key part in land use planning moving forward even if the RMA changes.”

Barry Bruce: “The NPSUD- national policy statement on urban development, is a directive from Central Government requiring councils to look at opportunities to plan for more intensified urban development, particularly close to public transport hubs and community facilities - the objective being to reduce vehicle use and encourage alternative transport modes.

I have two alternative views on how intensification may be applied in this area. On one hand I believe it is essential to protect our small town character and feel - the very unique attributes that attract both permanent residents and visitors to our town. Balancing this, there may be some potential for limited intensification in the CBD area with some considerations for minimising sun shading and retaining lake and mountain views. On the other hand, I believe there may be opportunities for intensification in areas such as Three Parks without having a negative effect on the character of the town centre.

A level of intensification in this area could meet some of the central government objectives, including, living close to employment, community amenities, facilities and services, thus minimising the need for vehicle travel. My conclusion is while I agree with some of the intensification objectives sought by central government, the policy does have an element of “one size fits all” and does not take into consideration the uniqueness of our area including the environment, historical and community sentiment or the lack of public transport services.”

Cody Tucker: “UIV is about allowing for greater intensification of housing through higher height limits and smaller minimum lot sizes to enable denser development and more housing choice near shops, services, and transport nodes.

Great for places like Three Parks, questionable for places like Hāwea south where there are currently no shops, no services and no transport nodes or public transport.” 

Niki Gladding: “The UIV is a proposed change to the District Plan that attempts to implement Policy 5 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. The requirement is to intensify specified urban environments, listed in the NPS, in line with demand for housing and the level of accessibility to jobs and commercial centres.

Firstly, I support intensification in sensible locations. Unfortunately, Policy 5 is a blunt directive that makes it difficult and costly to ‘spare’ areas from nonsensical intensification. I spoke at the hearing this week because I don’t believe a Policy 5 approach to intensification is required for Wānaka as it’s not a listed Tier 2 environment. Where we don’t have to apply Policy 5, we shouldn’t. I also submitted because the proposal includes intensification in, and adjacent to, flood, liquefaction, and landslide hazards – without QLDC having done the work to understand the natural hazard risk.

The council has assumed that natural hazard risk can and will be managed at the consent level – foisting the responsibility on applicants and creating uncertainty, inefficiencies, and (potentially) liabilities, in the process. Based on my experiences in Glenorchy, it's clear you can’t upzone a known hazard area and then expect to be able to reject an application based on natural hazard risk – because the zoning implies risk tolerance. Under the UIV it might also be difficult to recover development contributions for network capacity upgrades – if enabled intensification is provided for but never actually realised. We should have upzoned in fewer locations."

Craig Gasson: “As an urban design principle I support intensification, building up instead of out has been proven to deliver more affordable housing in urban areas, in part because it’s more efficient from an infrastructure perspective. But, I don’t believe there’s a huge need for a lot of intensification in and around Wānaka.

Certainly not in the town centre, we need to retain its character, and any height relaxation or intensification there needs to be a lot more thought out, and frankly left for another day. I have no issue with some mid rise type buildings being permitted in areas like Three Parks, that’s clearly becoming the new commercial hub of Wānaka. But I think we need to recognise we’re not yet a major urban area, we have an abundance of naturally flat and developable land in and around Wānaka. It doesn’t make sense to me to allow apartment buildings when there’s paddocks two minutes down the road.

There’s certainly an argument for intensification in Queenstown and Frankton, given their infrastructure challenges, but I’m in the camp that says that overloaded infrastructure needs to [be] resolved first, before intensification, and there’s an argument that all development on that side of the hill should pause until those issues are resolved.”

Yeverley McCarthy: “I am opposed to UIV in the CBD. I agree with Mark Gray who stated "the character underwrites the value of the town to residents and visitors alike and is integral to the national and international reputation of Wānaka as an alpine resort destination".

The logical place for 16.5m building and intensification is in Three Parks or that vicinity where it will not impact on the uniqueness of our Waterfront/Alpine precinct.”

Nicola King: “The Urban Intensification Variation (UIV) is a contentious issue. It’s being driven by the National government’s policy direction, which doesn’t recognise Wānaka’s unique character and scale. We’re being treated the same as cities like Dunedin and Whangārei - with populations four times larger than ours. Smarter planning is essential, and “up not out” has merit. But how we implement it matters.

A height increase to 16.5m in the CBD would completely change the village feel that defines Wānaka. The aim of intensification is to house more people near jobs and amenities, reducing traffic. In theory that works, but here most people will still own cars — because of the town’s spread, our outdoor lifestyle, and limited transport options.

Without addressing parking, we risk creating another problem. We also need to ask: who are we building for?

If it is ‘affordable housing’, CBD apartments are unlikely to provide it. The Lakeview development in Queenstown shows high-rise doesn’t equal affordable. We should be realistic about where homes can be built at a price locals can manage, while protecting Wānaka’s unique character. Growth and change are inevitable, but we can shape them in a way that works for our community.

That doesn’t have to mean five-storey buildings in the heart of town. I encourage all residents to read the UIV information online and make a submission. This is our chance to ensure growth happens in a way that makes sense for Wānaka.”

Thorsk Westphal: “Creating further intensification and building heights under the UIV must, again, be a balanced approach between the need for additional, affordable housing and the, in my view, bigger need to preserve the character and beauty of the town as it looks today.

‘We don't want another Queenstown’ is what I have heard from locals for so many years, and I agree. Intensification, including greater permissible building heights, could make sense in areas that are further from the CBD and lakefront, eg around Three Parks, where the overall appearance of Wānaka township would not be affected negatively. After all, that appearance is part of what attracts tourists to Wānaka, and is most loved by locals as well.”

Mayoral candidates respond

Glyn Lewers: “The Urban Intensification Variation (UIV) is a central government direction for Councils such as QLDC to meet. It is a requirement under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) policy five.

The issue of the UIV was the subject of one of the first letters I received from a Minister to say QLDC was behind in its implementation and there is an expectation that the variation will proceed. The UIV was first introduced to the council table when I was a councillor; the first pass was a rudimentary blanket height lift across areas based on some qualifying matters such as; they could have access to public transport in the future.

We got some weird outcomes like six storey apartments on the Hāwea lake front. We then did a second assessment with some further qualifying matters and this went out to the public for consultation.

The frustrating part about the process is we could not assess infrastructure capacity as a qualifying matter. This has not been without controversy; we have had a very strong public response which is good, with varied opinions. The current state of the process is that it is at the public hearings stage, we had the Wānaka hearings this week. Next the commissioners will deliberate and make a decision.

My view is that this whole process shows that one size fits all approach from the government does not work. However the NPS-UD is one of a few national direction policies that have a bipartisan approach.”   

Nik Kiddle: “The council’s “one size fits all” approach to raising building heights and encouraging housing intensification needs to be modified to accommodate communities’ concerns.

These include shading/sunlight, privacy and vehicle management. It must not threaten or erode the special character of our most precious historical areas. Like others in the district, I want to see respect for design guidelines and modifications to plan variations to achieve these goals.

We should continue to allow higher and more dense housing in appropriate areas, up against steep surroundings and in specified greenfield developments.” 

John Glover: “While I consider there are places where it would be appropriate to build higher and at a greater density, I don’t subscribe to a one size fits all approach. Communities like Hāwea and Arrowtown have spent many months working to agree and verbalise what ‘good’ looks like for them in the long term, from built, amenity and spatial standpoints.

I believe a better way forward would be to ask communities: ‘If you had to increase the density of housing in your area, where would be the best place to do that and what design constraints would provide the best outcome?’

From the work I’ve done with many communities in our district over the years, I find they are pragmatic, objective and generally know innately what the best outcomes would look like. The trouble is, we don’t often start by asking the basic question and only consult when we have a pre-determined option.”

Al Angus: “It's my experience that any proposal with ‘intensive’ in its headline is a multi level disaster for everyone and everything concerned, except the proponents that generally reap tens of millions and usually disappear as the reality and scope of the irreversible damage become clear. Easy examples are, intensive tourism, intensive dairying, intensive care, intensive housing estates are generally cheap built junk with a brooding tense atmosphere, not at all like the Disney like lifestyles in the brochures.”

Darren Rewi and Daniel Shand did not respond.

PHOTO: Wānaka App