Housing panel stands by economic conclusions
The under-fire Independent Hearings Panel stands by its recommendations to the Wellington City Council in the face of criticism.
Yesterday afternoon’s briefing with the commissioners who authored the controversial housing recommendations was the first of many ahead of the council’s big decision on the housing plan in March.
The panel’s report, which found that allowing more high-rise buildings would not increase housing affordability, had been heavily criticised by economists, who said it scoffed at economic consensus and went against the evidence.
Councillors have been restrained about their opinions on the recommendations so far released by the panel, because of strict legal advice.
But other local politicians have been more critical, saying the recommendations would lock in the status quo of Wellington’s unaffordable housing.
The question and answer briefing was the first look at councillors’ biggest concerns.
Panel chairperson Trevor Robinson was questioned by deputy mayor Laurie Foon about the conclusions on walking distance – where the panel found that evidence showing people in certain suburbs like Newtown walked to work did not suggest they also walked home from work.
Because of this, the panel reduced the size of the walkable catchments where six-storey buildings would be allowed.
“There was an evidential hole, basically. We had census evidence of how people went to work ... So how people get home was a question on which we had no meaningful evidence,” Robinson said.
“Just a followup to that,” replied pro-housing councillor Rebecca Matthews. “Does the panel not consider that if people walked to work, that led to a logical explanation of the ways that they got home, either walking or public transport?”
No, answered Robinson. Central Wellington was like an amphitheatre, where people walking to work generally went downhill from a suburb like Kelburn or Northland. “We didn’t think we could make the assumption, given the topography, that people would walk back uphill.”
On the economic evidence, which the panel has been criticised for, Robinson said he was comfortable with the conclusion on affordability. The panel had accepted the evidence of Dr Tim Helm, on behalf of a residents’ association, who attributed the lack of affordable housing in Wellington to construction costs rather than zoning limitations.
“The essence was that providing more [housing capacity] would make no difference, and providing less, depending on how much less, would make very little difference.” Another economist, Mike Cullen, representing Kāinga Ora, had told the panel that the high construction costs would not last forever, “but he didn’t tell us when that abnormal situation would end”. Helm had been closer to the mark than Cullen in the panel’s view, so the panel had preferred his economic evidence, Robin
son said.
Councillor Sarah Free was particularly concerned about the new high-rise zone within 10 minutes’ walking distance of Kilbirnie’s town centre.
“This is a very major departure from what we went out and consulted on,” she said after questioning Robinson.
It may not have been fair to the suburb, Robinson said, but the commissioners were bound to apply the upzoning policy because of national rules.
The size of the walkable housing catchment in Kilbirnie had not been based on local evidence because it had not been signalled in advance, meaning the local community had not had a chance to respond.
“I think that we relied on our general understanding ... I think it’s fair to say I don’t know Kilbirnie as well as some other parts of the city,” Robinson said.