sharetrader
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Densification

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    107

    Default Densification

    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...

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    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'.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    @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.

  5. #5
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thebusinessman View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTM 3442 View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    Ignorant. Just ignorant.
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wrong Side of the Tracks
    Posts
    1,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thebusinessman View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thebusinessman View Post
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •