Plan Change 120: Aucklanders pushing back against the council’s ‘densification madness’
Plan Change 120 the latest round of urban intensification imposed on Aucklanders by Auckland Council and the government is proving to be deeply unpopular with Aucklanders – and not just in this ward.
Over the past month I have addressed packed public meetings called by residents’ associations in Freemans Bay, St Marys Bay, Parnell and Herne Bay, the worst impacted parts of the Waitemata & Gulf Ward. Here, according to council planners, unique special character areas are to be wrecked by major intensification, including 50m apartment towers.
If you read the council publicity around Plan Change 120 there is a lot of emphasis on ‘flood protection’; ‘protecting Auckland’s green belt’ (though the mayor and PM recently appeared at a photo opportunity for a 307 ha development between Beachlands and Whitford); and intensifying around train stations. The 50m high apartment towers overlooking the harbour, and the consequent wrecking of special character areas is not mentioned at all – and yet this is I suspect the commercially driven purpose behind PC 120.
The constant lobbying of politicians and bureaucrats by powerful vested interests and their ‘think tanks’ is unfortunately now a normal feature of New Zealand politics. What is remarkable is how successful these vested interests have been in co-opting young (and some not-so-young) left-wing activists, self-styled ‘urbanists’, to their corporate agenda. As political journalist Chris Trotter famously observed at the time of the Unitary Plan hearings: ‘Generation Zero – the youth wing of the NZ Property Council’.
More recently Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University and the Integrity Institute points out that young left-wing activists were at the vanguard campaigning for removal of protection of special character areas in central Wellington, denouncing Wellington’s historic cottages (and by implication those trying to save them) as ‘colonialist’. Long gone are the days when the Left was at the forefront of heritage protection.
With the general acceptance of the withdrawal of the once significant public sector role in providing housing, especially for first home buyers, today’s activists have been convinced that market driven plans will result in more affordable homes. An article of faith is that it is ‘densification’ that will bring greater affordability and a range of other benefits as well.
We can check this theory out with cities in Australia. Compared to Sydney, Melbourne and Perth Auckland’s population is much smaller but quite surprisingly Auckland’s population density is significantly greater: 3041 persons per square kilometer compared to Sydney’s 2,296; Melbourne at 1800; and Perth at 1231 persons per sq km, (Demographia World Urban Areas 20th edition).
This, in terms of its urban residential population makes Auckland 32% more ‘densified’ than Sydney, nearly 70% denser than Melbourne and 147 % denser than Perth,
This is quite extraordinary when you compare Auckland’s 1.65 million population compared to Sydney’s 5.04 million, Melbourne’s 5.19 million and Perth’s 2.12 million
In terms of affordability, 10 years on from the Auckland Unitary Plan, despite the major upzoning which helped make Auckland the most intensified city in Australasia, housing prices did not decline – in fact they continued upwards. According to the 2025 edition of the Geographia International Housing Affordability report Auckland housing is classified as ‘Severely unaffordable’.
Another reason the urbanist/green left are sold on ‘densification’ is that they believe the more intensified a city, the better its public transport will be. Again as the song goes ‘It ain’t necessarily so.’
Auckland (AT’s) public transport performance is by far the worst performing in terms of patronage, in real terms but most importantly proportionately with only 53 trips/person/year boardings (2024) compared to Sydney at 102.8, Melbourne at 82.1 and Perth at 67 trips/person/per year. And despite the millions (billions of dollars if you include the CRL) going into public transport, PT patronage in Auckland has not only failed to recover its pre-covid levels but is actually flat-lining – the reasons why is another story. But to return to the point, Plan Change 120’s, cynical 1200 metre ‘walkable catchments’ (the international standard is 800m on level terrain) will not help our hopeless public transport performance, just as luxury apartment towers will not ease housing affordability.
Submissions for Plan Change 120 close on 19th December. See the link below and make a submission.
