The coalition government has signaled a potential rethink of its housing intensification plans for Auckland, following pushback from critics concerned about the scale and impact of the proposals. Housing Minister Chris Bishop confirmed on Friday that officials are exploring options that could weaken existing intensification laws, potentially lowering the target for new homes in the city.
Last year, Auckland Council approved the first phase of a long-term plan aimed at accommodating 2 million new homes over the coming decades. The plan followed an agreement between the council and the government, which allowed Auckland to opt out of the medium-density residential rules that apply to most major cities in New Zealand. In exchange, the council established zoning provisions designed to support 30 years of housing growth, with a total of 2 million homes calculated as the city’s capacity under the plan.
The council’s Plan Change 120 outlined the framework for implementing this growth, but since its approval, the government has faced mounting pressure from heritage advocates and residents concerned about intensification in established character areas. Critics argue that some neighborhoods are already experiencing significant development, and further densification could threaten the historic character of these communities.
Minister Bishop indicated that the government is considering “a range of options around housing capacity targets for Auckland,” but said details would be provided in the near future. Officials emphasized that any potential changes would not affect intensification around major public transport hubs, such as the Auckland City Rail Link (CRL), which is expected to open later this year.
The National Party, which initially supported medium-density residential standards under Judith Collins’ leadership, has signaled a shift under Christopher Luxon. Luxon has suggested that adjustments to the intensification rules are necessary to address concerns raised by communities and stakeholders.
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown said he had not been contacted directly by government ministers about any changes. “Nobody in the government has rung me back and said we’re going to be taking this back… they’re leaking to the press down there in preparation for it, but nobody in the government’s rung me to say that they’re going to do that,” he told reporters.
Brown reiterated his support for intensification, particularly in areas with robust public transport and infrastructure. He dismissed concerns about the 2 million homes target as “scaremongering and nonsense.” According to the mayor, residents in suburbs slated for growth already face rules permitting three-storey homes on every section up to the property boundary—measures that could be more disruptive than occasional multi-storey buildings.
The council’s Policy, Planning and Development Committee chair, Richard Hills, said he had heard rumors of a government backtrack throughout the summer but had “no clarity at all” regarding the process. Hills questioned how any law change could be implemented midway through the council’s consultation, noting that significant additional expenditure would be required to revise the plan. “Coming in halfway through a process without talking to us… leads to even more confusion,” he said.
Councillor Christine Fletcher welcomed the potential change, describing the 2 million-home approach as “blunt and ill-considered.” She argued that it failed to adequately consider the physical and social infrastructure needed to support such rapid growth. Fletcher said most Aucklanders would support a more measured approach, although some activists might criticize the government. “Slow and steady is the way to actually win this particular race,” she said, emphasizing that proper planning, not opposition to intensification itself, is the central concern.
As the debate continues, the government is expected to provide further guidance on any adjustments to Auckland’s housing intensification laws. Stakeholders on both sides of the discussion remain wary, highlighting the delicate balance between accommodating population growth and preserving the city’s character and infrastructure.
