Amidst the current general concerns that greenfield development is not good use of the land bordering our cities, the obvious alternative is densification of the existing large suburban sections. This may not suit everyone, but with modern city living offering easy access to shops and entertainment and recreational facilities, the need for a vege garden in the back and room for a cricket pitch out front is no longer required.
In the post-earthquake Christchurch rebuild, there have been numerous cases where city suburban sections containing single villas have been remodelled into compact townhouse developments changing the dwelling ration from 1 to many on the same section.
This story - Stuff - Business: 2-Oct-2019 - describes the thwarted attempt at replacing a dilapidated "as-is" property with a complex of 7 units. Although the recommendation from a Council Planning Team (eventually) was to grant the consent, a Hearings Panel - made up of community board politicians - declined the consent on the the grounds that there was not enough outdoor living space, and access for garaging and parking was insufficient - and that the development was out of character for the are (notwithstanding similar developments adjacent and nearby...)
Good or not-so-good planning processing? What do you think?
And another report on a consent application that was initially recommended by Council Planning Staff, but the application rejected in the decision by the Planning Commissioner. Stuff - Business: 12-Oct-2019
This application has a similar (but slightly different) theme to the previous report... - similar in that the planning recommendation was initially positive and then overturned by the Commissioner; - different in that it was declined over the multiple planning rule breaches (and not by a perception of lack of space).
Probably fair enough - especially if you were an affected neighbour!