Thanks but No Thanks

In what feels like the latest plot twist in “Urban Planning: Christchurch Edition,” Housing Minister Chris Bishop has taken a bold red pen to large chunks of Christchurch City Council’s Plan Change 14 (PC14).

The Council, having spent months (and a not-so-small fortune) consulting, analysing, and trying to thread the needle between government directives and local realities, is now left wondering: What did we do wrong — and was any of it worth it?

It’s not quite back to the drawing board… but the eraser is out, the paper’s crumpled, and the developer community is once again stuck squinting at a blurry rulebook, asking, "So... what now?"

 Lets rewind.

PC14 was the council’s attempt to implement the government’s Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). It was supposed to be Christchurch’s big step toward more compact, intensified housing options—think townhouses, terraces, and apartments instead of quarter-acre dreams and lawnmower weekends. A 30 year plan that would provide certainty to the city, residents and the development community.

The council had been wary of a one-size-fits-all approach and pushed back, proposing a more measured rollout of the rules. Cue months of hearings, reports, impassioned submissions and requests for deadline extensions.

But before we roll our eyes too hard, let’s take a moment to acknowledge something: the Council actually did put in the work.

Christchurch isn’t just any city. It’s still recovering from a rebuild, its urban form is unique, and its people care deeply about how their neighbourhoods look and feel. In PC14, the Council tried to balance national intensification directives with local character, natural features, and what the Resource Management Act calls "qualifying matters."

Things like recession planes — those invisible diagonal rules that stop your neighbour building a boxy monster right up against your fence — were treated seriously. So too were heritage areas like Riccarton Bush, which isn’t just a nice park but a rare remnant of native lowland forest that predates the suburbs around it by several hundred years.

The Council didn’t just slap together a half-baked excuse to avoid intensification. It tried to balance the need between enabling growth and respecting existing neighbourhoods — a tough job under pressure.

That said, not all of their proposals have aged well.

Let’s talk about the four-storey recommendation. Developers across the city have been quietly (and not-so-quietly) chuckling at this one. Why? Because building four storeys is, quite frankly, stupid. It’s the worst of both worlds — too tall for simple timber builds and too short to justify the extra costs of going vertical. Developers will tell you: once you go up, you need to go up — five, six storeys or more — to make it financially viable. Anything less and you’re just spending more for very little gain.

This disconnect points to a broader issue: the Independent Hearings Panel and Council, for all their thoroughness, seem to have missed a key memo from the construction sector: economics matter. If your rules don’t stack up in the real world, they’re not going to get built. And if they’re not going to get built, then you’re not solving the housing problem — you’re just rearranging the planning jargon.

And then there’s the Minister’s own curveball: his decision around the mass rapid transit (MRT) corridor. In a move that’s left council planners blinking in disbelief, the Minister declined to support the proposed setback rules around the MRT route — a cornerstone of the city’s future transport and urban intensification vision. It’s like removing the stage from under the actors halfway through the performance. The Council is now stuck trying to build a compact city around a theoretical transport route, while being told not to plan for it too confidently just yet.

All that said, the Minister’s "just get on with it" stance isn’t entirely without merit. Greater Christchurch does need more housing. We do need to stop dragging our feet. And the central government should expect cities to step up and implement the NPS-UD with some urgency.

But urgency doesn’t mean chaos — and smart planning takes more than just a firm hand and a press release.

So where does that leave developers? Stuck, again, in the middle. With a rejected plan, unclear rules, and rising costs, many are pressing pause while the policy ping-pong continues. The desire to build is there — the city and wider region’s growth trajectory supports it — but the rules need to be clear, realistic, and above all, economically viable.

In the meantime, if you're trying to make sense of this mess, take heart: at least you're not trying to build a four-storey apartment block in Riccarton.