Two overlooked votes on obscure council policies could make a significant difference to new housing in Wellington.
It’s no secret that council rules and processes are arcane. Local government is a bureaucratic minefield of jargon and seemingly pointless minutiae. It’s not uncommon for councillors to sit through hours of explanations from council staff, simply to understand the significance of an upcoming vote. Even then, there’s often some confusion about what certain amendments mean and how they should vote to get their preferred outcome.
Nowhere is that more evident than in Wellington’s District Plan. Wellington City Council finalised the major decisions around housing density back in March 2024, but the process didn’t end there. For more than a year, the council has continued to vote on increasingly minor and mostly uninteresting points.
Last Thursday, the council completed the final touches, bringing the District Plan process to a close and officially adopting it. It was no mere signing ceremony, though; the meeting’s agenda ran to 2,568 pages. The decisions made on the day weren’t huge headline-grabbers, but two small but important points are worth delving into.
The airport conundrum
The first was about the airport’s Obstacle Limitation Surface, or OLS, an obscure but powerful mechanism that gives Wellington Airport veto power over building heights anywhere near the airport. The airport is proposing a vastly expanded OLS zone, covering most of the city, at heights as low as eight metres. (Read more about the OLS controversy here.)
Rebecca Matthews introduced an amendment to change the minimum height to 11 metres, which would ensure all townhouse developments are unaffected, and to exclude areas that are shaded by hills.
Tim Brown, a former chair of the airport company, launched a spirited defence of the OLS, emphasising that the airport had never used the veto power. “There is very clear evidence that the OLS has had no impact on densification. We effectively have a situation of international safety standards versus a very hypothetical concern about people’s ability to undertake development,” he said.
Matthews said she felt she was being asked to reconcile two contradictory ideas: “that a massive increase in powers is essential to their operation and that it will never be used. I can’t hold both of those ideas in my head at once.”
A majority of councillors supported Matthews’ amendment. However, the council doesn’t have the power to change the OLS unilaterally. Essentially, all the council can do is write to the airport and ask them very nicely to change the OLS. If the airport doesn’t agree, the matter could end up in the Environment Court.
The e-bike apartment question
Wellington City Council has made a significant investment – both financially and politically – in bike lanes and other infrastructure to encourage more low-carbon transport and lifestyles. If more people are going to take up cycling, especially if that means going car-free, they need the ability to store their bikes in their homes.
To address this, council staff proposed a bike parking minimum for new apartments. It was a well-intentioned policy, but it went too far. It would have required developers to set aside 2.5 square metres of space, with access to electricity, for every unit. It provided enough space for every apartment dweller to store a large electric cargo bike.
Large apartment developers would have had to set aside an entire floor for bike parking. That would increase the build cost for developers, which would increase the price they would need to sell units for to make their margins work. That either means apartments will be more expensive, or they won’t be built at all. Exactly how much more expensive is hard to calculate – estimates from developer Stratum claimed as much as $58,000 extra per unit. Those numbers seem a bit too high to be credible, but it’s inarguable that the policy would add some additional cost.
The independent hearings panel, which oversaw the District Plan process, recommended reducing the requirement to one e-bike parking space per four units. But that number was plucked out of thin air and didn’t make anyone happy.
Ben McNulty introduced an amendment to remove the bike parking requirement. “As we allow developers to make their own decisions on car parks, gyms, pool and laundry, so we should on e-bikes and micro-mobility,” he said. Iona Pannett saw it differently: “Developers are like small children, they need to be told what to do. If we just let them do what they like, they will not provide enough.”
The debate has echoes of a 2021 decision by then-transport minister Phil Twyford to ban councils from requiring a minimum number of car parks in new developments – a policy that won international praise in urbanist circles for enabling lower housing costs for people who don’t need or want a car. The same financial argument could be made for mandatory bike parking, but bikes also have wider social benefits for dense urban areas.
A majority of councillors voted in favour of McNulty’s amendment, but some Green councillors were uncomfortable with how it might discourage cycling uptake, so they tasked council staff with finding an alternative solution.
The final twist in this tale is that the new work may all be for nothing. Housing minister Chris Bishop was watching the process play out – and tweeting about it. He doesn’t like bike parking minimums any more than Twyford liked car parking minimums, and there is growing speculation that he will ban them under his upcoming RMA reforms.
Discussion about this post