Wellington Scoop

Greens want an “ambitious” Spatial Plan for Wellington

News from Green Party
The Green Party is urging the Wellington City Council to pass an ambitious Spatial Plan that sets Wellington up for action on the housing crisis, allowing for more new homes close to the city centre.

“Our capital city needs many more quality, affordable, accessible homes close to where people work and study, and the best way to achieve that is up-zoning in suburbs close to the city centre,” Green Party Co-leader, based in Wellington, James Shaw said today.

“There of course must be some provision to protect significant heritage buildings and the character of our city, but not a blunt, blanket approach that prevents our city evolving to be more equitable and green.

“As Wellingtonians, we know that our city’s character relies on a diverse mix of people being able to afford to live here, and for that we need an ambitious approach to more new housing,” Green Party Urban Development spokesperson Julie Anne Genter said today.

“New housing must improve affordability for renters as well as owners, prioritise access to public transport, and safe walking and cycling, whilst allowing for green and public spaces. The Green Party does not want to see any overreaching protections in the Spatial Plan that prevent new affordable housing in good locations, or old, damp, mouldy colonial homes from being redeveloped. We want to see practical and realistic up-zoning in all walkable catchment areas.

“Getting this Spatial Plan right is just part of the mix when it comes to fixing the climate and housing crises here in Aotearoa. Additionally Central Government must do more, by fixing the Resource Management Act, massively upscaling community and public housing builds, by better resourcing Papakainga housing, and by ensuring accessibility.

“The Greens worked with Labour last term to create the new National Policy Statement on Urban Development to help realise the vision of more affordable homes, and now Wellington City Council has an opportunity to act on that.”


  1. Phil, 22. June 2021, 23:03

    If the Greens think the Spatial Plan or any other Plan is going to deliver affordable housing in Mt Vic they are dreaming (unless it’s subsidised by the Govt/Council).

    First you have to demolish a $2m house, pay all the fees and inflated building costs and then a profit margin..that does not equate to affordable!

  2. Claire, 22. June 2021, 23:07

    The Greens have a superficial take on this. There there are tons of places to build on brownfields. There is no need to wreck low-rise suburbs. If you put big buildings next to small cottages they certainly will rot and be mouldy. The Green thinking is big ideas with little detail or research it seems.

  3. Pseudopanax, 23. June 2021, 0:01

    What a Shame! The Green Party misses a golden opportunity to stand up for a sustainable Housing policy for Wellington and instead falls hook line and sinker for the Big Lie that the Spatial Plan will offer up “new affordable housing in good locations” and that “Cold damp mouldy homes” are stopping development. By buying into the Labour/Neale Jones inspired City For People package, they fail again to establish a credible point of difference with ambitious Labour councillors. Cowardly targeting homeowners instead of those sitting on prime development brownfield sites or Government agencies and Infratil (Wellington Airport) acquiring land and demolishing housing without a peep from these same politicians, councillors and ‘activists’. Waka Kotahi own 100 titles between the Terrace and Airport. When they say “Homes and Housing” read Apartments. The world of the Body Corporate, boring uniformity and carbon intensive construction while condemning timber family homes that have stood the test of time to landfill. Will Julie Ann Genter and James Shaw please stand up and say ” it is now illegal to rent out damp and mouldy housing” and help those, such as essential workers, nurses teachers etc, form their own CHPs to develop and maintain housing that suits their members needs. PLEASE Bring Back Sustainability!

  4. Kerry, 23. June 2021, 13:20

    Phil & Claire. Of course ‘affordable’ will be impractical in Mt Vic, but why should that be allowed to rule out greater density and minimise commuting distances? Why should Mt Vic residents be allowed to obstruct much-needed actions to manage climate change? What other actions are they willing to take, if any?

  5. Ray Chung, 23. June 2021, 13:45

    The Green Party is again showing their ignorance and naivety on housing. Apartments are much, much more expensive to build and the higher you go, the more expensive they’ll be per square metre. They’ll never, ever be classed as “affordable!” So the Green party had a hand in the UPS-UD huh? Well, that explains a lot!

  6. Claire, 23. June 2021, 13:57

    Kerry there are plenty of places along transport routes to build. There is no reason to build tall buildings next to cottages. Building already occurs in Mt Vic and Newtown at three storeys. The whole mouldy old house Nimby thing has been created by Gen Zero Yimbys and some councillors. It is political. All of us want houses but let’s have a voice of reason and expertly place buildings on brownfields. The inner character suburbs are not needed to meet the numbers.

  7. Greenwelly, 23. June 2021, 14:15

    “The Greens worked with Labour last term to create the new National Policy Statement on Urban Development….” It’s this last sentence that is most telling… it says they think that someone from the Green/Labour block (which has 8 members) will vote with the “heritage” group and allow the revised heritage areas to be included.

  8. Kerry, 23. June 2021, 14:26

    Phil & Claire. Of course ‘affordable’ will be impractical in Mt Vic, but why should that be allowed to rule out greater density and minimise commuting distances? Why should Mt Vic residents be allowed to obstruct much-needed actions to manage climate change? What other actions are they willing to take, if any?

  9. Claire, 23. June 2021, 14:49

    Greenwelly: that’s actually NOT what I meant. The character suburbs are not needed to meet population forecasts, which by the way have gone down. 4000 more homes needed in all the inner suburbs. That’s not much in each of the seven suburbs over 30 years.

  10. Meredith, 23. June 2021, 16:44

    Does anyone know what they are talking about? Has anyone looked at the demographic projections for the next 30 years? Perhaps it’s somewhere hidden in the spatial plan. But the council got the figures wrong so isn’t it pretty useless?

    Is anyone considering that the greatest need will be and is for the poorest – no not students, not young people, but older single women? You know – those women who stayed home to look after the family, and who then worked part-time with wages below the minimum wage, or received ‘pin money’ from husbands now dead, for that little extra treat. What are their needs for a home? And anyway what’s a ‘home’? Something with 5 bedrooms and five bathrooms? A tiny house? An igloo? A yert? A wooden house with scrim on the walls and a long drop? A 2 bedroomed cottage for say a family of 6 children? A 30 sq metre ‘granny flat’ now allowed without resource consent as long as there is no toilet in it? A retirement village house? A town house? A duplex? An apartment? An earthquake prone apartment? A leaky one? A 3 bedroomed house with a garden? A state house, a rented house? A house on leasehold land? A house with solar panels, recycled water, a compost toilet and community gardens? A shoebox apartment? One hemmed in by other shoebox apartments? One with no sunlight? No garden? No trees close by? No open space? Just another grey concrete wall?

    Is the difference between a house and a home, a place that is ‘old’ and a place that is ‘new’? Surely not.

    What is a house? What is a home? How many more do we need? What size? Where? Why? What infrastructure? What else? Too many questions? But does anyone know what they are talking about?

  11. Claire, 23. June 2021, 17:02

    Meredith: yes the WCC changed the population figures just before the submissions were due.
    You are right – it’s not all about young privileged people who are making the most political noise. And promoting fake ideas. (All old housing is mouldy). Older women have lost jobs during covid and will not get another one so now that’s it for them. And if they have not got a lot of money, can they now go flatting? Social housing is the biggest type we need.

  12. michael, 23. June 2021, 18:21

    Along with elderly single people, there are also many young families struggling in damp houses, but somehow it has become about young and often privileged who maybe better off financially than others trapped in these homes.

  13. Ms Green, 23. June 2021, 19:05

    Michael – yes, and many of those families live in state houses. State houses do not need to become ‘warm and dry’ until 2023 or 2024? Unlike private rented houses who are upgrading now. How is that right? Children are allowed to have rheumatic fever and asthma until then?

    Who are those hollering about old mouldies? Are most of them actually renting in private houses now required to have heatpumps, insulation, fans in the kitchen and bathroom, a rangehood over the stove, a washing machine, driers, other heaters, curtains, carpets, stove etc. Are they raising concerns about state house tenants? Do they really care about others or are they too used to living in centrally heated houses with a bathroom each, which their parents own and look after for them? There’s a whole lot more to the housing issue than old mouldies versus young newbies, none of which is to be found in the faulty WCC Spatial Plan.

  14. Claire, 23. June 2021, 19:30

    Ms Green: again love your comment. Nailed it. And of course as you say the biggest mould culprit is the GOVT. Tell that to Rebecca Matthews – she has said she wants to completely remove protection for character houses in an amendment tomorrow.

  15. Ms Green, 23. June 2021, 21:13

    Oh Claire I feel more questions coming on. Why would Cr Matthews do that? What would she achieve? An amended spatial plan that has no statutory status? So what? Would the amendment result in a dry warm affordable house (or two) for young newbies tomorrow? Or would it result in fewer of those comfortable old flats they live in now? Would they become homeless (but admittedly thereby saved from the mould they all live in and the mouldies whom they can’t stand)? Would the Green heritage-saving councillor from Mt Vic support that amendment? I doubt it, but then she has to support what the Greens Party said above: “We want “upzoning in suburbs close to the City centre” i.e. in Mt Vic, Aro Valley, Thorndon, Mt Cook.”

    Then there’s the mayor. He wants to have his cake and to eat it too: high CBD rise, dense city, but in today’s paper more urban sprawl with more 5 bedroom 3 bathroom huge houses out in Stebbings and Linconshire Farm.

    Anyway, why do all the young newbies need to live close to the city centre? What’s wrong with Naenae? People live there too.