Palmerston North’s house prices have increased over the last few years, following the national trend – but we're still affordable. We want to keep it that way.
We're considering reducing the risk of rapid house price rises by developing some of our own land at Whakarongo for housing (programme numbers 1485 and 1511). This involves building the subdivision infrastructure like roading, water, and wastewater, and offering affordable sections to the market.
We've done this in the past – for example, Waterloo Crescent and Dahlstrom Grove – and it has the potential to provide many benefits. These include providing more housing choice for potential buyers, as well as revenue for Council.
It will also allow us to lead by example in providing good urban design for new subdivisions.
There's always a relatively high risk level in new subdivisions, so we'll take a staged approach rather than creating an entire subdivision at once. This will provide more flexibility and less risk.
Options and implications
|Option 1||Option 2||Option 3||Option 4|
|Options||Develop the subdivision by creating the infrastructure and selling the sections for someone to build on. This is our preferred option as it best achieves the goal of providing increased choice, competition and revenue with the least overall risk||Sell the land to a developer, who will then subdivide and provide the infrastructure themselves||Develop the subdivision in partnership with a developer by jointly providing infrastructure within the subdivision and then selling the sections for someone to build on||Develop the subdivision by providing infrastructure within the subdivision, building the houses, and then selling the houses and sections|
|City Implications||An increase in the number of sections available, ensuring more choice in the market.||An increase in the number of sections available but timing will be at the developer’s discretion||An increase in the number of sections available||An increase in the number of sections available|
|Financial Implications||Our 10 Year Plan currently assumes the subdivision will produce a net return of more than $10m over 10 years and this has been used to reduce the debt required for other programmes||Lower risk but lower net return||Lower risk but lower net return||Higher costs and risk to the Council. Uncertain net return|
Our 10 Year Plan consultation process has now closed. Thanks to everyone who has provided us with feedback on our projects and the options we laid out for them.
We will be finalising the 10 Year Plan based on this feedback in June and will confirm the option chosen once this is complete.
23 April, 2018
Brian T says:
“Mix of options 1 and 4 with focus on affordability for families”
23 April, 2018
“Option 1. And preferably not on prime soils, as is happening in some areas now or by the filling in of valleys. This isn’t sustainable. ”
20 April, 2018
“Agree with option 1. Should build high quality, well insulated, draft-free, ventilated homes with natural NZ materials where possible”
19 April, 2018
“Option 1 . To keep control of the section pricing you can not let a developer be involved. Option 2. Use Trade Teachers and school leavers”
12 April, 2018
“All options are uneconomical, insufficient land to compete with developers long term. Instead use delegation instrument to control market”
8 April, 2018
“Hi, Option 1. Then people can stick to their own budget from then on. It is more fair, esp. with how hard it is for getting a mortgage now”
6 April, 2018
“I like option 1. I'm all for building new subdivisions rather than urban infill. ”
6 April, 2018
“Developer driven low cost housing does not keep housing affordable results in homelessness, Option 4 in the long run saves money ”
4 April, 2018
“The James Line subdivision process is already well underway. This is nothing but an asset selling farce. Where will this $ be reinvested?!”
3 April, 2018
“Partner with local social housing groups such as Homes For People to build truly affordable homes.”
3 April, 2018
“Check the land quality - if it's better for farming, don't waste it on housing when they could be done on poorer land”
25 March, 2018
“If this is to keep housing affordable, do option 3 IF the developer is the Government/Kiwibuild and get some state housing built as well.”