Densification

[thebusinessman]

Can any more enlightened members tell me how the densification rules would work with regard to title of the property?

ie. If I have a house in Christchurch freehold title 1000 sqm and I build two extra properties on it, do the owners of these new properties end up with some kind of cross-lease arrangement for the land or what? I'm under the impression it won't be a full subdivision...

[SBQ]

Under the current rules by local councils and the CURRENT rules of the RMA, a single titled property does not have to be sub-divided. However there are limits on what you can build in terms of densification. In Christchurch, land zoned as "Residential Suburban Zone" vs "Residential Suburban Transition Zone" dictates how close you can built to boundary lines and recession planes (the latter being more relaxed). There are "Permitted Activities" such as adding a 2nd dwelling but most pertain to earthquake damaged titles. For eg. I have an empty lot which fits under P12 (if I recall correctly) which is a fully serviced empty section that existed BEFORE the 2010 earthquakes. P12 allowed me to build 2 dwellings and I had architect plans drawn up. But under the PIM application, it proved I needed a Resource Consent (this was 4 years ago). It was not gonna go and a costly venture so I shelf the plans and ended up buying the neighbouring house.

Cross Lease are no more and from conveyance lawyers that told me, it's not something done anymore due to complexities later on. If you intend to build 3 separate dwellings on a 1000m2 size section, you either keep it under one title or sub-divide each dwelling into their own title. My PIM application came back with an estimated cost of $30K to subdivide my title into 2 separate titles (for merely just drawing a line across the section.. nothing more). This was 5 years ago and I would imagine DC fees would have risen considerably.

I'm a big fan of increasing densification and NZ really needs this to address the housing shortage and the climate change issues. Developed countries abroad all embrace high densification as a means of reducing individual carbon footprints. However in NZ, we have the expectation that it's better to build single story, be further away from your work place (longer commutes), which is a huge minus when it comes to addressing climate change.

[artemis]

Anyone who has done a decent road trip in New Zealand is well aware of the huge amounts of land out there. I think the Sleepyhead project at Ohinewai is a great example of a new satellite town based around a large employer. Pity some bureaucrats took so long to OK it, even where the developers were willing and able to make compromises.

The extra hoops and costs will discourage other projects. Pity as with high urban property prices there must be other manufacturers looking at selling up and doing a 'Sleepyhead'.

[SBQ]

@artemis:

The problem is nobody (or few) developers require rural properties. All the demand is in the urban cities yet the RMA has created a model where there's no differentiation between rural or urban regulations. As I said before, climate change is a big deal. Other OECD nations address densification in leaps and bounds. Have a look at what Vancouver (Canada) is doing compared to Auckland. Over the years i've seen nothing but more high rise buildings going up one after another, rapidly expanding public transit system, ALL the features of what you get in a 'world class city". To me, each time I visit Auckland I see little distinction when driving around New Lynn, Papakura, even in Manukau in terms of how houses look and street appeal. The houses are the same, there are few multistory builds, all this means a recipe for sky high prices for residential properties. A real lack of densification.

Now there's a huge push by the NIMBY group (who I think are the biggest hypocrites in the world) against densification. They believe in climate change and do things to reduce their carbon footprint but fail to see that expanding out, forcing people to live further away from the city or places where they commute to work, is a leading cause of higher carbon footprints on a macro level.

I'm still not hopeful if the proposed changes in the RMA will go through.

[GTM 3442]

Can any more enlightened members tell me how the densification rules would work with regard to title of the property?

ie. If I have a house in Christchurch freehold title 1000 sqm and I build two extra properties on it, do the owners of these new properties end up with some kind of cross-lease arrangement for the land or what? I'm under the impression it won't be a full subdivision...

Why would you subdivide? Why would you sell? Demolish, build, rent out the three new dwelling units.

[SBQ]

Why would you subdivide? Why would you sell? Demolish, build, rent out the three new dwelling units.

Sub-dividing allows separate title of each house and the ability to part with each sale. It is a common strategy to the land owner that would borrow funds to build the houses and then sell the sub-divided titles to pay back the loan or put funds towards the building of the other sub-divided lot.

[artemis]

Why would you subdivide? Why would you sell? Demolish, build, rent out the three new dwelling units.

Current rules around renting are not encouraging for owners. Too many hassles.

[thebusinessman]

Why would you subdivide? Why would you sell? Demolish, build, rent out the three new dwelling units.

You've sort-of touched on my original question. I may indeed not sell anything. However, if I built two extra houses on my land, then - say - decided to sell the original, older house, I'm a little confused as to how the ownership/sharing of the land would work. It's an easy model when you subdivide. Do three houses just "share" on title with a right to use their piece?

[GTM 3442]

You've sort-of touched on my original question. I may indeed not sell anything. However, if I built two extra houses on my land, then - say - decided to sell the original, older house, I'm a little confused as to how the ownership/sharing of the land would work. It's an easy model when you subdivide. Do three houses just "share" on title with a right to use their piece?

You're a landlord with a number of rental properties, each of which is a single dwelling unit - say a cr*ppy old villa on a big(gish) section.

With one of the properties, you sell the existing house for removal or bowl it.

You build three "dwelling units" - townhouses, apartments, whatever and rent them out. You have three income streams from rent where before there was only one income stream.

[SBQ]

You've sort-of touched on my original question. I may indeed not sell anything. However, if I built two extra houses on my land, then - say - decided to sell the original, older house, I'm a little confused as to how the ownership/sharing of the land would work. It's an easy model when you subdivide. Do three houses just "share" on title with a right to use their piece?

If all the houses are under ONE title, you can NOT sell the dwellings individually. It must be subdivided first into separate titles. Long ago there was a way called "cross leased" property. It was a new discovery when I came to NZ in the 90s here in Christchurch I was looking at houses in an area that appeared a lot less than the rest. Went to the open home to learn the house it sits on was land owned by the church. The realator was more keen on selling but not informing about the restrictions of buying a 'cross leased' title. Anyways, as far as I know (or lasted questioned my conveyance person about cross leased titles, she said you can't do new ones or that process is not allowed anymore in NZ.

I still await to see what Jacinda is doing about our housing problem. So far it's been nothing but talk and no action.

[thebusinessman]

Many thanks. I understand now that selling the property would involve selling all dwellings on the property, and that these new rules do not also allow for automatic subdivision. So, a little less flexible than I would have liked, but it makes sense.

[GTM 3442]

A view on unintended consequences. . . .

https://eyeofthefish.org/three/

[Entrep]

This has gone through https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300478047/sweeping-townhouse-bill-passes-into-law-with-support-of-labour-and-national-will-force-councils-to-allow-more-homes

The NPS-UD thing looks interesting for people who live near train stations, with apartments being allowed to be built, I think. Not much info on it though.

[SBQ]

A view on unintended consequences. . . .

https://eyeofthefish.org/three/

I disagree with mostly in that article (which is voicing against the intensification of building in NZ). He certainly lacks the reasons why in other OECD nations, why houses are built CLOSER and HIGHER. If you have a look at how houses have been built in the past 20+ years in NZ, particularly in your new sub divisions, they are godly boring SINGLE STORY houses. As my architect friends back in Canada, they say our newly built homes, "look not much more than the barns sheds we build in Canada just to house our cars".

I feel NZ for at least a whole generation, has lost a lot in terms of the productivity part of society, into home ownership. I mean high prices do nothing to increase productivity in society, it's a noose over their neck as profits that banks make do not funnel back into society. The damage is so severe when I compare to what my friends living in Canada were able to achieve and how their children were able to move into their 1st home SO MUCH MORE easily through the many Cdn gov't programs. Demand controls such as taxation for those owning more than their principle residence, supply controls by forcing land stake holders to do something with their land (and not held up by Maori interests that I see happen in NZ). After all 2/3rds of Canada wealth is not tied up in real estate like it is in NZ, rather 2/3rds is tied up in the stock market and business ownership.

So going back to the article, it's clear the author is practicing NIMBYism. Certainly has not seen how cities grow abroad. The assumption that building high and close to the boundaries is something NZ should not do, but does not question why can it be done overseas? Again, typical myopic thinking.

[GTM 3442]

I rather thought that the point of the article was that while the intention is to "densify" the inner suburbs, a more likely outcome is that the outer suburbs will be the place where the action is.

Time will tell. . .

[SBQ]

I rather thought that the point of the article was that while the intention is to "densify" the inner suburbs, a more likely outcome is that the outer suburbs will be the place where the action is.

Time will tell. . .

That's the fear I keep hearing but that's far likely to happen. There is simply no economic reason to build 3 stories in rural outer suburb areas where land is more plentiful. The market for those wanting to live in a 3 story townhouse is entirely different to the detached dwelling house. Where I am in Christchurch, there is simply no need for a single person living alone, to be wanting to live in a 3 or 4 bedroom detached dwelling. He/She is certainly not willing to pay over $1M for such a place. The problem with NZ's housing market is the lack of small 1 or 2 bedroom 'studio units' that fetch for $300K or less. First time home buyers, newly married couple wanting to raise a family will have it hard to pay 1M for a fully detached house. So what the higher density building offers is those 'entrant' level ownership at a much lower price tag.

This is how my friend got into the housing market in Vancouver some 25 years ago. He bought a high rise apartment at a price far more affordable than the large full size house dwelling ; if I recall less than half the price. This is affordable. But in NZ that option simply does not exist.

[GTM 3442]

"That's the fear I keep hearing but that's far likely to happen."

What does that mean? Far more likely, or far less likely? Or far <something else> likely?

[SBQ]

"That's the fear I keep hearing but that's far likely to happen."

What does that mean? Far more likely, or far less likely? Or far <something else> likely?

My bad grammar, I mean far LESS likely to happen. Anotherwords, just because the rules allow you to build massive and high in rural areas, does not mean it will happen.