Carolyn Hill, Waikato Times, 1 November 2021
Tension between enabling urban development versus retaining historic character in Aotearoa cities is set to ratchet up with the bipartisan announcement of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill last week.
This latest effort by the government to ease the housing crisis requires Tier 1 councils – all of NZ’s major cities – to enable 3 storeys and 3 dwellings per site as of right, no resource consent required. This is set to cover all existing residential areas, except where ‘qualifying matters’ apply.
One of these qualifying matters is historic heritage, which might give the impression that cities’ historic suburbs will be exempt from these new blanket provisions. Nope. It is a bit more complicated than that, because most of our old stuff is not covered by heritage controls but by ‘special character’ overlays – a policy tool that is notably absent from the list of qualifying matters.
So what are these concepts of ‘historic heritage’ and ‘special character’, and why the big difference in status? While it is common for the two terms to be used interchangeably, they in fact have very different meanings – and expectations for protection – under the RMA.
Historic heritage is carefully limited to individually-identified places that are listed in district plans. Think your town hall, pioneer cottage or stately house with the plaque out front. These individual places are protected as a matter of national importance under the RMA Section 6, and it looks like this is set to continue.
Special character, on the other hand, is used as a way to identify and manage a broad urban area that contains lots of old stuff. Think the historic streets of Aro Valley, Mount Eden, Riccarton. It is not a term that is defined in the RMA, and its application in urban areas is underpinned by rather vague wording about councils having regard to maintaining and enhancing amenity.
The special character concept has been a constant source of strife between the need for inner-city intensification and desires to maintain the leafy suburbs of yesteryear, with results that have often left everyone mutually unhappy – residents dismayed that development can happen at all; developers thwarted and out of pocket through delays, constraints and conditions.
The introduction of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) in 2020 was the government’s first big attempt to address this, with Tier 1 councils being directed to enable buildings of at least 6 storeys within cooee of urban centres – areas often coinciding with cities’ oldest suburbs. The NPS-UD spurred councils into action, but last week’s new bill announcement makes it clear that central government doesn’t consider their actions fast or comprehensive enough. There is every indication that using special character as a NIMBY defence will no longer be tolerated.
Where to now, then, for the notion of special character?
This seismic shift in urban housing policy demands that city leaders be real about what ‘special character’ really is. Special character areas are part of the historic heritage of our cities; a tangible indicator of how urban life established and grew in Aotearoa. More than a sum of parts or a simple amenity that backdrops good urban design, these areas are layered with histories, meaning and value. Urban citizens recognise this, and it is time that councils do too.
But just because this is the case, it does not follow that any and all old areas should be shielded from the gritty realities of needing to densify. Just because something is heritage does not mean that there is an objective universal truth that determines it must remain. Heritage is a creative and political process, a continuous ‘making’ that selectively protects some and discards others.
It is time for special character to be rehabilitated into historic heritage, and in so doing for Aotearoa’s urban heritage itself to be explored. This will mean hard decisions about what to protect and what to let go, with the balance shifting from personal amenity of occupiers to what areas can be easily accessed and enjoyed by city dwellers more widely. By stepping up to heritage, remaining historical urban landscapes become retained for the part they play in the story of Aotearoa, not for maintaining the status quo of a privileged few.
This also means honest conversations about whose heritage is missing and potentially embedded elsewhere in our urban environments – and how city leaders might highlight and privilege them. This may not be through the traditional heritage policy approaches of identifying and protecting physical forms – instead, it may be about enabling ways of life, pockets of diverse culture, and reinvigoration of papakāinga that development pressure can easily fragment and subdue.
Heritage-making and future-making are converging on special character. If special character is going to be part of a more equitable urban future, we need to get real now about what it is, and widen who it’s for.
Comments