Plan implementation and medium density housing outcomes: measuring the effect of Wellington City District Plan Change 56

<p>The Wellington City District Plan, operative since the year 2000, set goals for housing intensification. Residential development is encouraged within the existing footprint of the urban area of Wellington City. Intensification means housing development must incorporate a greater mix of housing typologies denser than the currently predominant low density single detached dwellings. To deliver intensification, planning in Wellington aims to incorporate medium density housing typologies that result in more dwellings while using less land. In 2007 Plan Change 56: Managing the Quality of Infill Housing was introduced. The plan change responded to concerns about the quality of housing outcomes being delivered by intensification. The implementation framework was amended through changing and adding a number of policies and rules and the Multiunit Developments Design Guide was replaced with the Residential Design Guide. The Plan Change kept policies for intensification, while policies controlling quality of medium density housing were amended. This research measured the effect of Plan Change 56 on the quality of medium density housing outcomes. Success in planning was found to be defined by the way plan implementation contributes to built outcomes meeting a plan’s goals and objectives. To measure outcomes, a method of assessing case studies was applied based on a range of prior New Zealand research. The Ministry for the Environment’s Medium-density Housing Case Study Assessment Methodology was used to assess and compare Wellington case studies of medium density housing from the periods before and after Plan Change 56. The selected case studies give evidence that Plan Change 56 did not cause an improvement in the quality of medium density housing outcomes. The key finding is that the treatment of open space is significant in defining the quality of medium density housing outcomes. Plan Change 56 made a number of amendments to the District Plan in terms of the way open space is treated around dwellings. Despite this, it was the most significant reason for post-Plan change case studies achieving low quality outcomes. Detailed comparison showed that changes to the District Plan rules for open space did not cause the quality of outcomes to improve. The application of the Residential Design Guide was compared to the superseded Multi Unit Developments Design Guide. The most significant amendments by Plan Change 56 related to guidelines for the design of building along street frontages in terms of volumes, orientation, and façade treatments. The case study results showed there was little difference in the way each design guide was used to assess Resource Consent applications. The results conclusively show that Plan Change 56 did not cause an improvement in the quality of medium density housing outcomes in Wellington.</p>

Plan implementation and medium density housing outcomes: measuring the effect of Wellington City District Plan Change 56

<p>The Wellington City District Plan, operative since the year 2000, set goals for housing intensification. Residential development is encouraged within the existing footprint of the urban area of Wellington City. Intensification means housing development must incorporate a greater mix of housing typologies denser than the currently predominant low density single detached dwellings. To deliver intensification, planning in Wellington aims to incorporate medium density housing typologies that result in more dwellings while using less land. In 2007 Plan Change 56: Managing the Quality of Infill Housing was introduced. The plan change responded to concerns about the quality of housing outcomes being delivered by intensification. The implementation framework was amended through changing and adding a number of policies and rules and the Multiunit Developments Design Guide was replaced with the Residential Design Guide. The Plan Change kept policies for intensification, while policies controlling quality of medium density housing were amended. This research measured the effect of Plan Change 56 on the quality of medium density housing outcomes. Success in planning was found to be defined by the way plan implementation contributes to built outcomes meeting a plan’s goals and objectives. To measure outcomes, a method of assessing case studies was applied based on a range of prior New Zealand research. The Ministry for the Environment’s Medium-density Housing Case Study Assessment Methodology was used to assess and compare Wellington case studies of medium density housing from the periods before and after Plan Change 56. The selected case studies give evidence that Plan Change 56 did not cause an improvement in the quality of medium density housing outcomes. The key finding is that the treatment of open space is significant in defining the quality of medium density housing outcomes. Plan Change 56 made a number of amendments to the District Plan in terms of the way open space is treated around dwellings. Despite this, it was the most significant reason for post-Plan change case studies achieving low quality outcomes. Detailed comparison showed that changes to the District Plan rules for open space did not cause the quality of outcomes to improve. The application of the Residential Design Guide was compared to the superseded Multi Unit Developments Design Guide. The most significant amendments by Plan Change 56 related to guidelines for the design of building along street frontages in terms of volumes, orientation, and façade treatments. The case study results showed there was little difference in the way each design guide was used to assess Resource Consent applications. The results conclusively show that Plan Change 56 did not cause an improvement in the quality of medium density housing outcomes in Wellington.</p>

Out of area housing by local authorities in England: displacement of vulnerable households in a neoliberal housing crisis

Based on freedom of information responses from English local authorities, the research examines the number of households where a duty to accommodate was accepted that were subsequently housed in other local authority areas. Recognising neoliberal housing policy of increased marketisation and less government intervention, the article identifies market failure, housing unaffordability and welfare reform contributing to households being displaced and social cleansing. Importantly, the research recognises negative housing outcomes beyond the binary of homelessness and the impact on vulnerable households by examining out of area housing, which is currently an under-researched area within housing.