Was the intent of the report to comment on reducing the cost of housing or the other things being made fun of in this article? While the report writers clearly don’t understand some basic economic theory, it seems odd to appoint a group of architects and planners to comment on economics to start with.
I had a cursory scan through the report but didn’t find anything about the objectives of the report (which I may have just missed).
What purpose was the report commissioned to fulfill?
My understanding is that this report will be used to set the rules / limits on housing density in Wellington going forward. There was a “Spatial Plan” produced by the council a year or so back which kinda set the goals, but this new District Plan would be the official, and seemingly very watered down, document that dictates that can be built where. This previous article form the Spinoff describes it better: A simple guide to Wellington’s District Plan and why you should care about it.
But yeah it seems really weird and even inappropriate that this group is making decisions about the need for housing, what is / isn’t mass transit, etc.
This is my layperson’s reading of the law, but I think it’s from an Independent Hearings Panel that the council was required to establish under this part of the RMA in relation to an Instrumentation Planning Instrument (basically all the changes going through the motions in the housing density rules).
Next the council has to consider each recommendation, and accept it reject them. It can provide alternative recommendations but in doing so it can only consider evidence that was submitted to the Independent Hearings Panel.
The council doesn’t have to accept its recommendations, but if it chooses not to accept any or all of them then the Minister gets to decide if they have to be implemented.
So it’s a requirement for changing the density rules, but the panel doesn’t really need to be commenting on whether building more houses will reduce the price of houses?
Was the intent of the report to comment on reducing the cost of housing or the other things being made fun of in this article? While the report writers clearly don’t understand some basic economic theory, it seems odd to appoint a group of architects and planners to comment on economics to start with.
I had a cursory scan through the report but didn’t find anything about the objectives of the report (which I may have just missed).
What purpose was the report commissioned to fulfill?
My understanding is that this report will be used to set the rules / limits on housing density in Wellington going forward. There was a “Spatial Plan” produced by the council a year or so back which kinda set the goals, but this new District Plan would be the official, and seemingly very watered down, document that dictates that can be built where. This previous article form the Spinoff describes it better: A simple guide to Wellington’s District Plan and why you should care about it.
But yeah it seems really weird and even inappropriate that this group is making decisions about the need for housing, what is / isn’t mass transit, etc.
This is my layperson’s reading of the law, but I think it’s from an Independent Hearings Panel that the council was required to establish under this part of the RMA in relation to an Instrumentation Planning Instrument (basically all the changes going through the motions in the housing density rules).
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/whole.html#LMS634247
Next the council has to consider each recommendation, and accept it reject them. It can provide alternative recommendations but in doing so it can only consider evidence that was submitted to the Independent Hearings Panel.
The council doesn’t have to accept its recommendations, but if it chooses not to accept any or all of them then the Minister gets to decide if they have to be implemented.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/whole.html#LMS634479
Expect plenty more lobbying aimed at Simeon Brown.
So it’s a requirement for changing the density rules, but the panel doesn’t really need to be commenting on whether building more houses will reduce the price of houses?
Heh. I’m afraid trying to answer that question is above my pay grade.