.png)
On the 21st of August, Auckland Council's Policy and Planning Committee took the only prudent step available: agreeing to send Minister Chris Bishop's draft replacement plan to Local Boards and iwi for consultation. Crucially, the Committee did not endorse the plan. They confirmed there would be a robust submission process with Environment Court appeals, not fast-tracked consenting, and ensured Watercare would outline wastewater capability before any September endorsement.
Minister Bishop deserves recognition for enabling future development along improved rail corridors and finally allowing the Auckland Council to address natural hazards that devastated homes during the 2023 Anniversary Weekend, Cyclone Gabrielle and 2025 Easter floods. His decision to remove blanket MDRS zoning—which enabled "3x3" development as a permitted activity across virtually any residential neighbourhood—is particularly welcome.
The Minister wants economic growth and for Auckland to lift its game. So do we. But we question the quality of advice he's receiving on inflated housing capacity targets exceeding two million sites. To put this in perspective: Auckland currently has around 550,000 homes for 1.7 million people. Adding two million more homes over 20-30 years would create a city of 6+ million people—larger than Greater London. This represents growth that would make even Lagos’s explosive expansion look modest.
The Independent Hearings Panel in 2016, after considerable research and expert analysis, enabled 900,000 dwellings—a robust 30-year supply target. Central areas like Albert-Eden, Waitematā, Ōrākei and Puketāpapa have exceeded their medium-density contributions, proving the approach works. Housing supply is driven by market forces, not planned zoning.
During PC78 consultation and consistently since, most Aucklanders have opposed character loss, indiscriminate high-rise development, poor urban design, and infrastructure competing with housing priorities.
Infrastructure-led development delivers superior outcomes to capacity-led development. What Minister Bishop's government appears to overlook is Objective 6 of their own NPS-UD, which requires infrastructure alignment to support the densification mandated under Objective 3.
Minister Bishop wants to decouple economic growth from house price rises, establishing that genuine growth comes from productivity improvements. We support this vision. However, forcing Auckland Council to create a massive two-million housing supply environment that cannot be delivered physically or financially creates an enormous economic burden for future generations.
Multiple planning workshops have confirmed that the capacity modelling to meet Bishop's two-million target has no infrastructure modelling aligned to it whatsoever. This approach forces Auckland to shoot itself in the foot. It's time to slow the process and plan properly to achieve quality outcomes with financial certainty.
Singapore's intensification success offers valuable lessons. Their Ministry of National Development integrates land use, housing and infrastructure policy. The Urban Redevelopment Authority prepares long-term Concept Plans and statutory Master Plans with proper development controls. Critically, they never release land until infrastructure is in place.
In the United Kingdom, councils maintain only five-year housing supplies—but they must be feasible supplies with infrastructure in place, requiring careful planning and sequencing of each development phase.
Such thoughtful approaches cannot be achieved within the compressed timelines this Government has imposed. Bishop's quest to improve our economy through a massive housing supply is misguided.
Auckland's Mayor suggests we must accept the government directive or "be done to." At September's Planning Committee meeting, Auckland Council faces a stark choice: endorse the replacement plan with its fifteen-storey walkable catchments and six-storey THAB zones extending up to 400 metres either side of some arterial roads or have default planning settings imposed.
This is planning by firing squad at an authoritarian level. Where is the courage amongst elected members to push back when we know this is simply not feasible?
While Auckland Transport, Watercare and Healthy Waters representatives will attend, there's no realistic prospect of pre-planned infrastructural alignment serving all that "enabled capacity" being ready.
Hardly anyone will get their say before the replacement plan is notified. The 45,000 property owners along light rail corridors left out of PC78 have had no voice. Local Boards and iwi will submit on changes unlikely to be implemented because the central government's targets are driving Putin-like fear among advisors and decision-makers.
Auckland Council hasn't pushed back firmly enough on the two-million target. Many communities are only now awakening to the travesties of confidential planning workshops and behind-the-scenes horse-trading.
Auckland cannot achieve this capacity without Government funding and an infrastructure-led approach. When CRL opens, $6.7bn will still be needed to upgrade signalling and road separation to unlock its full benefits. Other key transport corridors are already at capacity—Dominion Road carries 25-29 buses hourly, with buses so full they often bypass inner city stops, leaving passengers stranded.
The solution isn't more buses. If the Government wants intensification, constructing the proposed Avondale to Southdown rail link ($6 billion) would create a London Circle Line-style loop, improving network resilience and enabling revised bus routes to feed railway stations. This would relieve congestion and deliver the intensification and productivity gains the Minister seeks.
Much of Auckland's underground water and wastewater infrastructure also needs replacement. Intensification without first replacing and upsizing old broken pipes risks further damaging the environment that Aucklanders value.
The Minister must realise that demanding Auckland enable two million sites without planned, funded, and sequenced infrastructure seems up there with Muldoon's worst authoritarian excesses.
Auckland deserves better than capacity spreadsheets disconnected from infrastructure reality. We are not opposed to density, but the choice is clear: quality growth that enhances our city, or unrealistic quantity targets that risk destroying it.
Christine Fletcher is an Auckland Councillor and a former National MP. Troy Churton is an Ōrākei Local Board member. This is their personal, shared view and not made on behalf of any other association.
