Skip to main content.

7 Density findings

The following cases were reviewed that included references to the subject of density in an urban context:

  • Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council (C61/06 and C105/06)

  • Christchurch Civic Trust v Christchurch City Council (C82/05)

  • Duxton Hotel Wellington v Wellington City Council (W21/05)

  • Frasers Papamoa Ltd, DJ & DJ Holland and Others, Collingwood Trustees Ltd and Another v Tauranga City Council (W90/07)

  • Mitchell v Waitakere City Council (A21/00)

  • Urban Auckland – Society for the Protection of Auckland City and Waterfront Inc v Auckland City Council [2005] NZRMA 155 (High Court).

Some cases also referenced other urban subjects and, accordingly, may or may not be referred to under those subjects. Each case is summarised in Appendix 1.

Density, in the context of this report, aims to capture the cases within urban areas that relate to intensification, infill and its direct influence on city form such as height. Like many of the urban subjects canvassed here, the linkages between density and the consideration of effects on character, amenity and heritage are strong. This review focuses on density at the larger urban area rather than site-specific scale, where character and amenity are a symptom effect recognised by the Court. Amenity and character subjects are addressed in sections 4 and 5 respectively of this report.

7.1 Increasing density

Density, at a city-wide or town scale, has become an increasing focus for councils. This is both in response to growing interest in the sustainability of urban areas and market-driven interest in providing further variety in the choice of residential living environments on offer.

Some councils are working toward encouraging different types of development density, but this is at an early stage and has not yet found its way into much of the case law. Several councils, in both metropolitan and smaller urban centres, are examining and preparing density and intensification strategies. The complex nature of this work and the changes these strategies will generate for existing and new urban areas will inevitability see instances where consequential district plan provisions will find their way to the Court for determination.

In the several cases that address this subject, the Court confirmed the use of comprehensive development plans (like a structure plan) to manage urban growth and its density in new development areas.

In the area of Yaldhurst in Christchurch (Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council), the Court endorsed plan provisions to provide, on a greenfield site, for a range of densities, an open space network, an integrated approach to treatment of stormwater and provision for public transport and pedestrian movement. In Mitchell v Waitakere City Council, the Court again recognised the approach of managing densities to maintain open space values, through the use of structure plan techniques supported by high standards of analysis and community consultation.

7.2 Density scale

Historically, there have always been cases where changes in density (as the development of town houses or flats) have found their way to the Court, but these have tended to be at a site level and less influential on ‘city form’ overall. They have generally been concerned with the effect of a specific development on character or other localised values. There were few cases identified (such as Duxton Hotel Wellington v Wellington City Council) during this review that addressed the other end of the scale – decisions about density and the influence of this on city form and its long-term sustainability. As noted above, perhaps further cases are yet to come.

7.3 City form and height combinations

There are few cases that address city form in the third dimension of height – where there is a deliberate intention to create a conceptual and physical shape that goes outwards as well as upwards.

In one example where this was a consideration (Duxton Hotel Wellington v Wellington City Council) the Court approved a development that was based on the interpretation and application of city form at a site-specific level. The Court found that the overall city form was maintained by a site-specific development that was higher than allowed for by the district plan as of right. The presence of relevant policy and guidelines in such cases provides a useful framework for considering the specifics of a particular site.

The absence of such policy guidance may also result in site-specific development decisions that do not fit a council’s aspirations for an area. If there is no guidance in a district plan about where growth is expected to occur, but policy exists that encourages intensification, then a council may find the Court applying the broad policy to either support or refuse growth in ways that differ from council expectations. The courts have demonstrated they are capable of applying broad policies with the assistance of Part 2 of the RMA and the expert evidence before them (Frasers Papamoa Ltd, DJ & DJ Holland and Others, Collingwood Trustees Ltd and Another v Tauranga City Council).

The Court has recognised the effects of tall development on city aesthetics in a case where it determined that design criteria should have been applied to a building as a whole instead of limiting consideration solely to street level (Urban Auckland v Auckland City Council).

 

[ |